What limits search for conjunctions of simple visual features?

Despite of decades of research, we still do not know for sure the roles of internal noise, attention, and crowding in search for conjunctions of simple visual features. In this study, we tried several modifications to the classic design of conjunction-search experiments. In order to match exactly the proportions of simple features, two different targets were presented in target-present trials-vertical red and horizontal blue bars among vertical blue and horizontal red distractors. Both the length of the bars and the number of objects in a display were varied. Positions of objects were selected for minimal crowding effects. Exposure duration was 60 ms, and proportion correct was used as the measure of performance. For conjunction search, the results rejected the unlimited-capacity model and were consistent with limited-capacity attentional processing, and with the Naka-Rushton transform of the target-distractor difference. Qualitatively the same results were obtained when bar length was fixed, and fine orientation difference was used to manipulate target-distractor discriminability. An experiment of feature (orientation) search produced results close to the unlimited-capacity model.

[1]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Striate cortex of monkey and cat: contrast response function. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  J. Palmer,et al.  Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  J. P. Thomas,et al.  A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[7]  A. Treisman.  Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Harold Pashler,et al.  A Boolean map theory of visual attention. , 2007, Psychological review.

[9]  R Klein,et al.  Search performance without eye movements , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  David Whitney,et al.  Multi-level Crowding and the Paradox of Object Recognition in Clutter , 2018, Current Biology.

[11]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited , 1990 .

[13]  Elizabeth S. Olds,et al.  Spatial Organization of Distractors in Visual Search , 1999 .

[14]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes , 1971 .

[15]  H. Bouma,et al.  Eccentric vision: Adverse interactions between line segments , 1976, Vision Research.

[16]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[17]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Spatial attention: effect of position uncertainty and number of distractor patterns on the threshold-versus-contrast function for contrast discrimination , 1998 .

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

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

[20]  Endel Põder,et al.  Combining local and global limitations of visual search. , 2017, Journal of vision.

[21]  J. Duncan,et al.  Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[23]  P. Quinlan.  Visual feature integration theory: past, present, and future. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

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

[25]  Peter Neri,et al.  Spatial resolution for feature binding is impaired in peripheral and amblyopic vision. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  H. Egeth,et al.  Searching for conjunctively defined targets. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  K. Naka,et al.  S‐potentials from colour units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae) , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[28]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  Rethinking the Role of Top-Down Attention in Vision: Effects Attributable to a Lossy Representation in Peripheral Vision , 2011, Front. Psychology.

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

[30]  Keith A May,et al.  Connecting psychophysical performance to neuronal response properties II: Contrast decoding and detection. , 2015, Journal of vision.

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

[32]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

[33]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The contribution of covert attention to the set-size and eccentricity effects in visual search. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  R. Rosenholtz,et al.  A summary statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual search. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[35]  Zhaoping Li.  A saliency map in primary visual cortex , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  SEARCH FOR A CONJUNCTIVELY DEFINED TARGET CAN BE SELECTIVELY LIMITED TO A COLOR-DEFINED SUBSET OF ELEMENTS , 1995 .

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

[38]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Feature asymmetries in visual search: Effects of display duration, target eccentricity, orientation and spatial frequency , 1998, Vision Research.

[39]  V. Lollo,et al.  The preattentive emperor has no clothes: a dynamic redressing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  H. Pashler,et al.  Attention capacity and task difficulty in visual search , 2005, Cognition.

[41]  J. Braun.  Visual search among items of different salience: removal of visual attention mimics a lesion in extrastriate area V4 , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[42]  George Sperling,et al.  The spatial distribution of visual attention , 2004, Vision Research.

[43]  Amanda Ellison,et al.  Perceptual learning in visual search: Some evidence of specificities , 1998, Vision Research.

[44]  B. Kröse,et al.  The control and speed of shifts of attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[45]  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.

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

[47]  V. Walsh,et al.  Perceptual Learning in Visual Conjunction Search , 1998, Perception.

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

[49]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Does precision decrease with set size? , 2012, Journal of vision.