Do People Take Stimulus Correlations into Account in Visual Search?

In laboratory visual search experiments, distractors are often statistically independent of each other. However, stimuli in more naturalistic settings are often correlated and rarely independent. Here, we examine whether human observers take stimulus correlations into account in orientation target detection. We find that they do, although probably not optimally. In particular, it seems that low distractor correlations are overestimated. Our results might contribute to bridging the gap between artificial and natural visual search tasks.

[1]  W. Ma,et al.  Factorial comparison of working memory models. , 2014, Psychological review.

[2]  Jeffrey S. Perry,et al.  Contour statistics in natural images: Grouping across occlusions , 2009, Visual Neuroscience.

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

[4]  Xaq Pitkow,et al.  Exact feature probabilities in images with occlusion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[5]  D. Knill,et al.  The brain uses adaptive internal models of scene statistics for sensorimotor estimation and planning , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  D. Burr,et al.  Visual Clutter Causes High-Magnitude Errors , 2006, PLoS biology.

[7]  A. Pouget,et al.  Not Noisy, Just Wrong: The Role of Suboptimal Inference in Behavioral Variability , 2012, Neuron.

[8]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  The Adaptive Nature of Visual Working Memory , 2014 .

[9]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Requiem for the max rule? , 2015, Vision Research.

[10]  P. Verghese.  Visual Search and Attention A Signal Detection Theory Approach , 2001, Neuron.

[11]  David Jaarsma,et al.  More on the Detection of One of M Orthogonal Signals , 1967 .

[12]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Toward ecologically realistic theories in visual short-term memory research , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[13]  B. O. Koopman.  The Theory of Search. II. Target Detection , 1956 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[15]  G. Yule.  NOTES ON THE THEORY OF ASSOCIATION OF ATTRIBUTES IN STATISTICS , 1903 .

[16]  Yaakov Kareev,et al.  Positive bias in the perception of covariation. , 1995 .

[17]  R. Rosenholtz.  Visual search for orientation among heterogeneous distractors: experimental results and implications for signal-detection theory models of search. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Independence is elusive: set size effects on encoding precision in visual search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[19]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  A probabilistic model of visual working memory: Incorporating higher order regularities into working memory capacity estimates. , 2013, Psychological review.

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

[21]  John Palmer,et al.  Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[23]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Probabilistic Computation in Human Perception under Variability in Encoding Precision , 2012, PloS one.

[24]  Daniel A. Braun,et al.  Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[25]  A. Pouget,et al.  Behavior and neural basis of near-optimal visual search , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  W. W. Peterson,et al.  The theory of signal detectability , 1954, Trans. IRE Prof. Group Inf. Theory.

[27]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  No Evidence for an Item Limit in Change Detection , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

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

[30]  C S Green,et al.  Alterations in choice behavior by manipulations of world model , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  Hierarchical Encoding in Visual Working Memory , 2010, Psychological science.

[32]  George A. Alvarez,et al.  Variability in the quality of visual working memory , 2012, Nature Communications.

[33]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.