Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories

Understanding preference decision making is a challenging problem because the underlying process is often implicit and dependent on context, including past experience. There is evidence for both familiarity and novelty as critical factors for preference in adults and infants. To resolve this puzzling contradiction, we examined the cumulative effects of visual exposure in different object categories, including faces, natural scenes, and geometric figures, in a two-alternative preference task. The results show a clear segregation of preference across object categories, with familiarity preference dominant in faces and novelty preference dominant in natural scenes. No strong bias was observed in geometric figures. The effects were replicated even when images were converted to line drawings, inverted, or presented only briefly, and also when spatial frequency and contour distribution were controlled. The effects of exposure were reset by a blank of 1 wk or 3 wk. Thus, the category-specific segregation of familiarity and novelty preferences is based on quick visual categorization and cannot be caused by the difference in low-level visual features between object categories. Instead, it could be due either to different biological significances/attractiveness criteria across these categories, or to some other factors, such as differences in within-category variance and adaptive tuning of the perceptual system.

[1]  J. Langlois,et al.  Attractive Faces Are Only Average , 1990 .

[2]  Michael A. Hunter,et al.  Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. , 1983 .

[3]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[4]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  Xiang Fang,et al.  An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect , 2007 .

[6]  R. L. Fantz Visual Experience in Infants: Decreased Attention to Familiar Patterns Relative to Novel Ones , 1964, Science.

[7]  R. L. Fantz Pattern Vision in Newborn Infants , 1963, Science.

[8]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Fitting the mind to the World , 2003, Psychological science.

[9]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Unsupervised Learning , 2018, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[10]  L B Cohen,et al.  Developmental changes in infant visual preferences for novelty and familiarity. , 1973, Child development.

[11]  H. Hayne,et al.  Interpreting visual preferences in the visual paired-comparison task. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[13]  John G. Seamon,et al.  The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. , 1995 .

[14]  D. Berlyne Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[15]  R. Bornstein Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[16]  B. Karmel,et al.  The effect of age, complexity, and amount of contour on pattern preferences in human infants. , 1969, Journal of experimental child psychology.