Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task.

In both behavior and neuroscience research, it is debated whether the processing of identity and location is closely bound throughout processing. One aspect of this debate is the possibly privileged processing of identity or location. For example, processing identity may have unlimited capacity, while processing location does not. The authors have investigated the possibility of such privileged processing by measuring set-size effects for a variety of identification and localization tasks. In particular, set-size effects in accuracy visual search are measured with either 1 or 2 possible targets. For 1-target tasks, set-size effects are smaller for identification than localization; for 2-target tasks, set-size effects are larger for identification than localization. The observed crossover interaction is inconsistent with a privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location. Furthermore, this interaction is predicted by an independent channel model based on signal detection theory, in which the details of each decision determine the relative magnitude of the set-size effects. This result is consistent with the similar processing of identity and location, and it refutes the privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location.

[1]  Thomas L. Thornton,et al.  Parallel and serial processes in visual search. , 2007, Psychological review.

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

[3]  G. Loftus,et al.  Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. , 2004, Psychological review.

[4]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Signal detection theory applied to three visual search tasks--identification, yes/no detection and localization. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[5]  R. Quick.  A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection , 2004, Kybernetik.

[6]  Mieke Donk Vrije,et al.  Illusory conjunctions are an illusion: The effects of target-nontarget similarity on conjunction and feature errors. , 1999 .

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

[8]  Y. Rossetti,et al.  Optic ataxia revisited: visually guided action versus immediate visuomotor control. , 2003, Experimental brain research.

[9]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  Comparing integration rules in visual search. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[10]  Patrick Monnier,et al.  Set-size and chromatic uncertainty in an accuracy visual search task , 2001, Vision Research.

[11]  J. Lund,et al.  Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  M Donk,et al.  Illusory conjunctions die hard: a reply to Prinzmetal, Diedrichsen, and Ivry (2001). , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  K. Dobkins,et al.  Effects of set-size and selective spatial attention on motion processing , 2001, Vision Research.

[14]  R B Ivry,et al.  Illusory conjunctions are alive and well: a reply to Donk (1999). , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J A Solomon,et al.  Odd-men-out are poorly localized in brief exposures. , 2001, Journal of vision.

[16]  Y. Tsal.  Do Illusory Conjunctions Support the Feature Integration Theory ? A Critical Review of Theory and Findings , 2001 .

[17]  M Donk,et al.  Feature localization and identification. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[18]  David C Burr,et al.  Feature-based integration of orientation signals in visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

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

[20]  Geoffrey M. Ghose,et al.  Specialized Representations in Visual Cortex A Role for Binding? , 1999, Neuron.

[21]  R. Desimone,et al.  The Role of Neural Mechanisms of Attention in Solving the Binding Problem , 1999, Neuron.

[22]  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 .

[23]  M. Morgan,et al.  Visual Search for a Tilted Target: Tests of Spatial Uncertainty Models , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[24]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[25]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. I. Effect of number of possible spatial locations and signal contrast. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[26]  J. Saarinen.  Localization and discrimination of “pop-out” targets , 1996, Vision Research.

[27]  R Ivry,et al.  A formal theory of feature binding in object perception. , 1996, Psychological review.

[28]  P. Bennett,et al.  Letter localization, not discrimination, is constrained by attention. , 1995, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[29]  J. Palmer.  Attention in Visual Search: Distinguishing Four Causes of a Set-Size Effect , 1995 .

[30]  Gezinus Wolters,et al.  Response dependency and processing dependency of line orientation and position in a single-item task , 1995 .

[31]  D. Navon,et al.  Illusory Conjunctions: Does Inattention Really Matter? , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  A. V. D. Heijden,et al.  Complete dependence of color identification upon color localization in a single-item task , 1995 .

[33]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  Visual Feature Integration in a World of Objects , 1995 .

[34]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The functional organization of human extrastriate cortex: a PET-rCBF study of selective attention to faces and locations , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

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

[36]  D. V. Essen,et al.  Neural mechanisms of form and motion processing in the primate visual system , 1994, Neuron.

[37]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Masking disrupts recovery of location information , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  H. Nothdurft.  The role of features in preattentive vision: Comparison of orientation, motion and color cues , 1993, Vision Research.

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

[40]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  How parallel are the primate visual pathways? , 1993, Annual review of neuroscience.

[41]  Marc Green,et al.  Visual Search: Detection, Identification, and Localization , 1992, Perception.

[42]  H. Nothdurft.  Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive vision , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  H. C. Nothdurft,et al.  Texture segmentation and pop-out from orientation contrast , 1991, Vision Research.

[44]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays , 1991, Vision Research.

[45]  H. Pashler,et al.  Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  N. Graham.  Visual Pattern Analyzers , 1989 .

[47]  Allen Allport,et al.  Visual attention , 1989 .

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

[49]  O J Braddick,et al.  ‘Where’ and ‘What’ in Visual Search , 1989, Perception.

[50]  Y. Tsal.  Further Comments on Feature Integration: A Reply to Briand and Klein , 1989 .

[51]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[53]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  On the relation between summation and facilitation , 1987, Vision Research.

[54]  J S Brown,et al.  Tests of a model of informational persistence. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[55]  H. Nothdurft.  Sensitivity for structure gradient in texture discrimination tasks , 1985, Vision Research.

[56]  J P Thomas,et al.  Detection and identification: how are they related? , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[57]  B Julesz,et al.  "Where" and "what" in vision. , 1985, Science.

[58]  B. Julesz,et al.  Detection versus Discrimination of Visual Orientation , 1984, Perception.

[59]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[60]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  W. Estes,et al.  Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[62]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[63]  R. Mansfield,et al.  Analysis of visual behavior , 1982 .

[64]  Leslie G. Ungerleider.  Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[65]  P F Judy,et al.  Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[66]  W. Estes,et al.  Item and order information in short-term memory: Evidence for multilevel perturbation processes. , 1981 .

[67]  Jamie I. D. Campbell,et al.  Identification, localization, and “iconic memory”: An evaluation of the bar-probe task , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[68]  K H Shum,et al.  Evidence for feature perturbations , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[70]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[71]  J E Hoffman,et al.  A two-stage model of visual search , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[72]  C D Creelman,et al.  Auditory phase and frequency discrimination: a comparison of nine procedures. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[73]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Human information processing : tutorials in performance and cognition , 1975 .

[74]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

[75]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Parallel psychometric functions from a set of independent detectors , 1975 .

[76]  E DITORS,et al.  Who and what. , 1975, Pediatrics.

[77]  Quick Rf.  A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection. , 1974 .

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

[79]  J. Nachmias,et al.  Visual detection and discrimination of luminance increments. , 1970, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

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

[81]  W. P. Tanner.  PHYSIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL DATA * , 1961, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[82]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .