Visual Comparison of Random-Dot Patterns: Evidence concerning a Fixed Visual Association between Features and Feature-Relations

Subjects made Same—Different judgements on pairs of briefly presented random-dot patterns: they had to judge in separate experiments either whether the members of each pair were identical in shape or whether the number of dots in each pattern was the same. When one pattern was the rotated version of the other, the proportion of Same responses varied with the angle of rotation in the same way for the two types of judgement. From these and other data obtained with pattern pairs in which members differed in shape and in dot-number, the following inferences are made. First, in making both kinds of Same judgements, a fixed visual association is established between local features (dot-clusters within the pattern) and certain spatial relations between these local features. Thus when spatial-relation information is in principle irrelevant to the pattern-comparison task, as in judgements of dot-number, this information is not separated from the relevant local-feature information in the pattern representation. Second, in both tasks, a common description of the patterns in terms of local features and feature-relations is used in making a Same judgement. Third, some shape discrimination independent of orientation and some dot-number discrimination independent of shape are each the result of the process mediating Different decisions.

[1]  E. L. Kaufman,et al.  The discrimination of visual number. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  J. Swets.  The Relative Operating Characteristic in Psychology , 1973, Science.

[3]  G. V. Dearborn.  Recognition under objective reversal. , 1899 .

[4]  C. Frith,et al.  The solitaire illusion: An illusion of numerosity , 1972 .

[5]  Howard S. Hock,et al.  The effects of stimulus structure and familiarity on same-different comparison , 1973 .

[6]  Irvin Rock,et al.  Orientation and form , 1974 .

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

[8]  N. Sutherland.  Outlines of a theory of visual pattern recognition in animals and man , 1968, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[9]  R. S. French.  The discrimination of dot patterns as a function of number and average separation of dots. , 1953, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[10]  David H. Foster,et al.  Visual Pattern Recognition by Assignment of Invariant Features and Feature-relations , 1977 .

[11]  D. Foster,et al.  Spatio-temporal interaction between visual colour mechanisms. , 1974, Vision research.

[12]  D. Bamber.  Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimull , 1969 .

[13]  William C. Hoffman,et al.  The neuron as a Lie group germ and a Lie product , 1968 .

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

[15]  Raymond S. Nickerson,et al.  Binary-classification reaction time: A review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities. , 1972 .

[16]  Lawrence Stark,et al.  Predictive Control of Eye Tracking Movements , 1962 .

[17]  H. Barlow,et al.  Visual pattern analysis in machines and animals. , 1972, Science.

[18]  David R. Cox.  The analysis of binary data , 1970 .

[19]  D. J. Finney,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Experimental Design , 1960 .

[20]  Paul A Kolers,et al.  Spatial and ordinal components of form perception and literacy , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  M. D. Arnoult.  Shape discrimination as a function of angular orientation of the stimuli. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  R. A. Fox,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Statistics , 1947 .