The importance of being expert: Top-down attentional control in visual search with photographs

Two observers looking at the same picture may not see the same thing. To avoid sensory overload, visual information is actively selected for further processing by bottom-up processes, originating within the visual image, and top-down processes, reflecting the motivation and past experiences of the observer. The latter processes could grant categories of significance to the observer a permanent attentional advantage. Nevertheless, evidence for a generalized top-down advantage for specific categories has been limited. In this study, bird and car experts searched for face, car, or bird photographs in a heterogeneous display of photographs of real objects. Bottom-up influences were ruled out by presenting both groups of experts with identical displays. Faces and targets of expertise had a clear advantage over novice targets, indicating a permanent top-down preference for favored categories. A novel type of analysis of reaction times over the visual field suggests that the advantage for expert objects is achieved by broader detection windows, allowing observers to scan greater parts of the visual field for the presence of favored targets during each fixation.

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

[2]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  N. Charness,et al.  Visual Span in Expert Chess Players: Evidence From Eye Movements , 2001, Psychological science.

[5]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning , 1997, Nature.

[6]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[7]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  E. Reingold,et al.  Visual search asymmetry: The influence of stimulus familiarity and low-level features , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  C. Koch,et al.  A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention , 2000, Vision Research.

[10]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect , 1995 .

[11]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  S. Hochstein,et al.  With a careful look: Still no low-level confound to face pop-out , 2006, Vision Research.

[13]  D. Levine,et al.  Prosopagnosia: A defect in visual configural processing , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

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

[15]  S Ullman,et al.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. , 1985, Human neurobiology.

[16]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  C. Koch,et al.  Computational modelling of visual attention , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[18]  E. Warrington,et al.  Prosopagnosia: a clinical, psychological, and anatomical study of three patients. , 1977, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[19]  P. Malinowski,et al.  The effect of familiarity on visual-search performance: Evidence for learned basic features , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  C. Koch,et al.  Attention activates winner-take-all competition among visual filters , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[22]  D. Burr,et al.  Selective suppression of the magnocellular visual pathway during saccadic eye movements , 1994, Nature.

[23]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[24]  R. Rauschenberger,et al.  The effects of stimulus rotation and familiarity in visual search , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Computational approaches to the development of perceptual expertise , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

[29]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Robert L. Goldstone Learning to Perceive While Perceiving to Learn , 2003 .

[32]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Kathy E. Johnson,et al.  Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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