Effects of part-based similarity on visual search: The Frankenbear experiment

Vision Research

Volumn 54, Issue , 2012, Pages 20-30

  Alexander, Robert G ^a   Zelinsky, Gregory J ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Distractor homogeneity; Eye movements; Object parts; Target distractor similarity; Visual search; Visual similarity

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; VISION; VISUAL SEARCH; VISUAL SIMILARITY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FIXATION, OCULAR; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84855906032     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: 18785646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alexander R.G., Zelinsky G.J. Visual similarity effects in categorical search. Journal of Vision 2011, 11(8:):1-15. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/9. 10.1167/11.8.9.
2. Ashby F.G., Perrin N.A. Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychological Review 1988, 95:124-150.
3. Becker S.I., Ansorge U., Horstmann G. Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search?. Vision Research 2009, 49(14):1738-1756. 10.1016/j.visres.2009.04.001.
4. Becker M.W., Pashler H., Lubin J. Object-intrinsic oddities draw early saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:20-30.
5. Blanchette I., Dunbar K. How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory and Cognition 2000, 28(1):108-124.
6. Bravo M.J., Farid H. The specificity of the search template. Journal of Vision 2009, 34:1-9. http://journalofvision.org/9/1/34/. 10.1167/9.1.34.
7. Brockmole J.R., Henderson J.M. Using real-world scenes as contextual cues for search. Visual Cognition 2006, 13(1):99-108.
8. Castelhano M.S., Pollatsek A., Cave K.R. Typicality aids search for an unspecified target, but only in identification, and not in attentional guidance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2008, 15:795-801.
9. Cockrill P. The teddy bear encyclopedia 2001, DK Publishing Inc, New York.
10. Duncan J., Humphreys G.W. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review 1989, 96:433-458.
11. Duncan J., Humphreys G.W. Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992, 18:578-588.
12. D'Zmura M. Color in visual search. Vision Research 1991, 31(6):951-966.
13. Eckstein M.P., Drescher B., Shimozaki S.S. Attentional cues in real scenes, saccadic targeting and Bayesian priors. Psychological Science 2006, 17:973-980.
14. Edelman S. Representation is representation of similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1998, 21:449-498.
15. Foulsham T., Underwood G. If visual saliency predicts search, then why? Evidence from normal and gaze-contingent search tasks in natural scenes. Cognitive Computation 2011, 3(1):48-63.
16. Geisler W.S. Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations. Psychological Review 1989, 96(2):267-314.
17. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics 1966, John Wiley, Oxford, England.
18. Henderson J.M., Weeks P., Hollingworth A. The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1999, 25:210-228.
19. Kanan C., Tong M.H., Zhang L., Cottrell G.W. SUN: Top-down saliency using natural statistics. Visual Cognition 2009, 17(6):979-1003.
20. Ling Y., Pietta I., Hurlbert A. The interaction of colour and texture in an object classification task. Journal of Vision 2009, 9(8). 10.1167/9.8.788.
21. Logan G.D. An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review 2002, 109:376-400. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.376.
22. Ludwig C.J.H., Gilchrist I.D. Stimulus-driven and goal-driven control over visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:902-912.
23. Ludwig C.J.H., Gilchrist I.D. Goal-driven modulation of oculomotor capture. Perception and Psychophysics 2003, 65:1243-1251.
24. Medin D.L., Goldstone R.L., Gentner D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review 1993, 100(2):254-278.
25. Moores E., Laiti L., Chelazzi L. Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6:182-189.
26. Najemnik J., Geisler W.S. Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search. Nature 2005, 434:387-391.
27. Neider M.B., Zelinsky G.J. Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search. Vision Research 2006, 46:2217-2235.
28. Neider M.B., Zelinsky G.J. Scene context guides eye movements during visual search. Vision Research 2006, 46(5):614-621.
29. Neider M.B., Zelinsky G.J. Exploring set size effects in scenes: Identifying the objects of search. Visual Cognition 2008, 16(1):1-10.
30. Oliva A., Torralba A. Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal in Computer Vision 2001, 42:145-175.
31. Oliva A., Wolfe J.M., Arsenio H.C. Panoramic search: The interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30:1132-1146.
32. Palmer J., Verghese P., Pavel M. The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Research 2000, 40:1227-1268.
33. Phillips S., Takeda Y., Kumada T. An inter-item similarity model unifying feature and conjunction search. Vision Research 2006, 46:3867-3880.
34. Pomplun M., Reingold E.M., Shen J. Area activation: A computational model of saccadic selectivity in visual search. Cognitive Science 2003, 27(2):299-312.
35. Rao R.P.N., Zelinsky G.J., Hayhoe M.M., Ballard D.H. Eye movements in iconic visual search. Vision Research 2002, 42:1447-1463.
36. Schmidt J., Zelinsky G.J. Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62(10):1904.
37. Smith J.D., Redford J.S., Gent L.C., Washburn D.A. Visual search and the collapse of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2005, 134:443-460.
38. Takeda Y., Phillips S., Kumada T. A conjunctive feature similarity effect for visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:186-190.
39. Torralba A., Oliva A., Castelhano M., Henderson J.M. Contextual guidance of attention in natural scenes: The role of global features on object search. Psychological Review 2006, 113:766-786.
40. Treisman A.M. Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1988, 40A:201-237.
41. Treisman A.M. Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1991, 17(3):652-676.
42. Treisman A.M., Gelade G. A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 1980, 12:97-136.
43. Treisman A.M., Sato S. Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:459-478.
44. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 1977, 84:327-352.
45. Verghese P. Visual search and attention: A signal detection theory approach. Neuron 2001, 31:523-535.
46. Wolfe J.M. Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1994, 1:202-238.
47. Wolfe J.M. Guided search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. Integrated models of cognitive systems 2007, 99-119. Oxford, New York. W.D. Gray (Ed.).
48. Wolfe J.M., Bennett S.C. Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Research 1996, 37:25-43.
49. Wolfe J.M., Cave K.R., Franzel S.L. Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1989, 15(3):419-433.
50. Yang H., Chen X., Zelinsky G.J. A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics 2009, 71(3):554-564.
51. Yang H., Zelinsky G.J. Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets. Vision Research 2009, 49:2095-2103.
52. Zelinsky G.J. Detecting changes between real-world objects using spatiochromatic filters. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2003, 10(3):533-555.
53. Zelinsky G.J. A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review 2008, 115:787-835.
54. Zelinsky G.J., Schmidt J. An effect of referential scene constraint on search implies scene segmentation. Visual Cognition 2009, 17(6):1004-1028.
55. Zelinsky G.J., Sheinberg D.L. Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1997, 23(1):244-262.