Spacing affects some but not all visual searches: implications for theories of attention and crowding.

We investigated the effect of varying interstimulus spacing on an upright among inverted face search and a red-green among green-red bisected disk search. Both tasks are classic examples of serial search; however, spacing affects them very differently: As spacing increased, face discrimination performance improved significantly, whereas performance on the bisected disks remained poor. (No effect of spacing was observed for either a red among green or an L among + search tasks, two classic examples of parallel search.) In a second experiment, we precued the target location so that attention was no longer a limiting factor: Both serial search tasks were now equally affected by spacing, a result we attribute to a more classical form of crowding. The observed spacing effect in visual search suggests that for certain tasks, serial search may result from local neuronal competition between target and distractors, soliciting attentional resources; in other cases, serial search must occur for another reason, for example, because an item-by-item, attention-mediated recognition must take place. We speculate that this distinction may be based on whether or not there exist neuronal populations tuned to the relevant target-distractor distinction, and we discuss the possible relations between this spacing effect in visual search and other forms of crowding.

[1]  Li Fei-Fei,et al.  Binding is a local problem for natural objects and scenes , 2005, Vision Research.

[2]  Jeffrey Moran,et al.  Neural mechanisms of attention in extrastriate cortex of monkeys , 1988 .

[3]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Precuing target location in a variable set size "nonsearch" task: Dissociating search-based and interference-based explanations for set size effects. , 1999 .

[4]  B. C. Motter.  Focal attention produces spatially selective processing in visual cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 in the presence of competing stimuli. , 1993, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  A Cohen,et al.  Density effects in conjunction search: evidence for a coarse location mechanism of feature integration. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Attention and Preattention , 1977 .

[8]  C. Koch,et al.  Visual Search and Dual Tasks Reveal Two Distinct Attentional Resources , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  C. Koch,et al.  Category-specific visual responses of single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  S. Amari,et al.  Dynamic Interactions in Neural Networks: Models and Data , 1988, Research Notes in Neural Computing.

[12]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Modulation of sensory suppression: implications for receptive field sizes in the human visual cortex. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  V. Lamme,et al.  The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

[15]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Rate of information processing in visual perception: some results and methodological considerations. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[17]  H. Pashler,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[19]  P. Verghese.  Visual Search and Attention A Signal Detection Theory Approach , 2001, Neuron.

[20]  C. Koch,et al.  Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain , 2005, Nature.

[21]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[22]  D. Purcell,et al.  It Takes a Confounded Face to Pop Out of a Crowd , 1996, Perception.

[23]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Spatial Resolution of Visual Attention , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Attention, pattern recognition and popout in visual search , 1998 .

[25]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  At first sight: A high-level pop out effect for faces , 2005, Vision Research.

[26]  J. Findlay,et al.  Face Detection in Peripheral Vision: Do Faces Pop Out? , 1997, Perception.

[27]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area , 1998, Cognition.

[28]  S. Grossberg.  The Attentive Brain , 1995 .

[29]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Attentional requirements in a ‘preattentive’ feature search task , 1997, Nature.

[30]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness , 1996, Nature.

[31]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  D. B. Bender,et al.  Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the Macaque. , 1972, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  U. Neisser.  VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[34]  D. Jeffreys.  A face-responsive potential recorded from the human scalp , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The temporal dynamics of visual search: evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  D. Perrett,et al.  Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  P. Perona,et al.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Stimulus discriminability in visual search , 1994, Vision Research.

[39]  D. Levi,et al.  The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea , 1992, Vision Research.

[40]  D. Perrett,et al.  Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Processing of one, two or four natural scenes in humans: the limits of parallelism , 2004, Vision Research.

[42]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[43]  James R. Bergen,et al.  Parallel versus serial processing in rapid pattern discrimination , 1983, Nature.

[44]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  D. Pelli,et al.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[46]  R. VanRullen.  On second glance: Still no high-level pop-out effect for faces , 2006, Vision Research.

[47]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[48]  J. Palmer.  Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks , 1994, Vision Research.

[49]  R. Desimone,et al.  Competitive Mechanisms Subserve Attention in Macaque Areas V2 and V4 , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[50]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Specialized face processing and hemispheric asymmetry in man and monkey: Evidence from single unit and reaction time studies , 1988, Behavioural Brain Research.

[51]  H. Nothdurft.  Faces and Facial Expressions do not Pop Out , 1993, Perception.

[52]  M. Eckstein.  The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[53]  W. Geisler,et al.  Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: visual search. , 1995, Psychological review.