From parallel to serial processing: A computational study of visual search

A novel computational model of a preattentive system performing visual search is presented. The model processes displays of lines, reproduced from Wolfe, Friedman-Hill, Stewart, and O’Connell’s (1992) and Treisman and Sato’s (1990) visual-search experiments. The response times measured in these experiments suggest that some of the displays are searched serially, whereas others are scanned in parallel. Our neural network model operates in two phases. First, the visual displays are compressed via standard methods (principal component analysis), to overcome assumed biological capacity limitations. Second, the compressed representations are further processed to identify a target in the display. The model succeeds in fast detection of targets in experimentally labeled parallel displays, but fails with serial ones. Analysis of the compressed internal representations reveals that compressed parallel displays containglobal information that enables instantaneous target detection. However, in representations of serial displays, this global information is obscure, and hence, a target detection system should resort to a serial, attentional scan of local features across the display. Our analysis provides a numerical criterion that is strongly correlated with the experimental response time slopes and enables us to reformulate Duncan and Humphreys’s (1989)search surface, using precise quantitative measures. Our findings provide further insight into the important debate concerning the dichotomous versus continuous views of parallel/serial visual search.

[1]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagation errors, nature , 1986 .

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

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

[4]  P. Kube.  Unbounded visual search is not both biologically plausible and NP - Complete , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Neural networks and principal component analysis: Learning from examples without local minima , 1989, Neural Networks.

[6]  Terence D. Sanger,et al.  Optimal unsupervised learning in a single-layer linear feedforward neural network , 1989, Neural Networks.

[7]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations of back-propagation errors , 1986 .

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagating errors , 1986, Nature.

[9]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Image Processing and Recognition , 1979, Adv. Comput..

[10]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  R.W. Ehrich,et al.  Computer image processing and recognition , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[12]  Y. Tsal.  Movements of attention across the visual field , 1983 .

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

[14]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  A Learning Algorithm for Boltzmann Machines , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Extracting features from faces using compression networks: Face , 1990 .

[16]  Leslie S. Smith,et al.  The principal components of natural images , 1992 .

[17]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  John K. Tsotsos.  Analyzing vision at the complexity level , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.