Computation of mean size is based on perceived size

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 375-384

  Im, Hee Yeon ^a   Chong, Sang Chul ^a  

^a Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUDGMENT; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SIZE PERCEPTION;

EID: 64749112620     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.2.375     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention. Psychological Science, 19, 392-398. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02098.x
2. Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12, 157-162. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00327
3. Beach, L. R., & Swenson, R. G. (1966). Intuitive estimation of means. Psychonomic Science, 5, 161-162.
4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
5. Busch, A., & Müller, H. J. (2004). The Ebbinghaus illusion modulates visual search for size-defined targets: Evidence for preattentive processing of apparent object size. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 475-495.
6. Chong, S. C., Joo, S. J., Emmanouil, T. A., & Treisman, A. (2008). Statistical processing: Not so implausible after all. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1327-1334.
7. Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2003). Representation of statistical properties. Vision Research, 43, 393-404. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00596-5
8. Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2005a). Statistical processing: Computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision Research, 45, 891-900. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.004
9. Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2005b). Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1-13.
10. Choplin, J. M., & Medin, D. L. (1999). Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 3-12.
11. Coren, S., & Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 579-588.
12. Coren, S., & Miller, J. (1974). Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 355-357.
13. Ebbinghaus, H. (1902). Grundzuge der Psychologie (Vol. 1., Band 2. Theil.). Leipzig: Viet & Co.
14. Ehrenstein, W. H., & Hamada, J. (1995). Structural factors of size contrast in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Japanese Psychological Research, 37, 158-169.
15. Feigenson, L. (2008). Parallel non-verbal enumeration is constrained by a set-based limit. Cognition, 107, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.006
16. Girgus, J. S., Coren, S., & Agdern, M. (1972). The interrelatioship between the Ebbinghaus and the Delboef illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 453-455. doi:10.1037/h0033606
17. Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17, 751-753.
18. Jaeger, T. (1978). Ebbinghaus illusions: Size contrast or contour interaction phenomena? Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 337-342.
19. Jaeger, T., & Grasso, K. (1993). Contour lightness and separation effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 76, 255-258.
20. Massaro, D. W., & Anderson, N. H. (1971). Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 147-151. doi:10.1037/h0031158
21. Müller, H. J., & Busch, A. (2006). Visual search for size-defined target objects is modulated by the Ebbinghaus apparent-size illusion: Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of the context objects. Perception, 35, 671-700. doi:10.1068/p5139
22. Murray, S. O., Boyaci, H., & Kersten, D. (2006). The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 429-434. doi:10.1038/nn1641
23. Myczek, K., & Simons, D. J. (2008). Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 772-788.
24. Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2006). Building the gist of a scene: The role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research: Visual Perception, 155, 23-36.
25. Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29-46.
26. Roberts, B., Harris, M. G., & Yates, T. A. (2005). The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). Perception, 34, 847-856. doi:10.1068/p5273
27. Serences, J. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2007). Feature-based attentional modulations in the absence of direct visual stimulation. Neuron, 19, 301-312.
28. Sohn, W., Chong, S. C., Papathomas, T. V., & Vidnyanszky, Z. (2005). Cross-feature spread of global attentional modulation in human area MT+. NeuroReport, 16, 1389-1393. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000174059.57144.62
29. Teghtsoonian, M. (1965). The judgment of size. American Journal of Psychology, 78, 392-402. doi:10.2307/1420573
30. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
31. Weintraub, D. J., & Schneck, M. K. (1986). Fragments of Delboef and Ebbinghaus illusions: Contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 147-158.
32. Williams, D. W., & Sekuler, R. (1984). Coherent global motion percepts from stochastic local motions. Vision Research, 24, 55-62. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(84)90144-5