Ensemble representations: Effects of set size and item heterogeneity on average size perception

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 142, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 245-250

  Marchant, Alexander P ^a   Simons, Daniel J ^b   de Fockert, Jan W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

2323 Visual Perception; 2340 Cognitive Processes; 2346 Attention; Average size; Ensemble representations; Sampling; Set size; Statistical processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PERCEPTION; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; SET (PSYCHOLOGY); SIZE PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84873122300     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alvarez G.A. Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 15:122-131.
2. Ariely D. Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science 2001, 12:157-162.
3. Chong S.C., Joo S.J., Emmanouil T.-A., Treisman A. Statistical processing: Not so implausible after all. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:1327-1334.
4. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Representation of statistical properties. Vision Research 2003, 43:393-404.
5. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:1-13.
6. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Statistical processing: Computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision Research 2005, 45:891-900.
7. Corbett J.E., Oriet C. The whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts: Perceptual averaging in the absence of individual item representation. Acta Psychologica 2011, 138:289-301.
8. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:87-185.
9. Dakin S., Watt R.J. The computation of orientation statistics from visual texture. Vision Research 1997, 37:3181-3192.
10. De Fockert J.W., Marchant A.P. Attention modulates set representation by statistical properties. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:789-794.
11. De Fockert J.W., Wolfenstein C. Rapid extraction of mean identity from sets of faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62(9):1716-1722.
12. Haberman J., Whitney D. Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology 2007, 17(17):751-753.
13. Luck S.J., Vogel E.K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 1997, 390:279-281.
14. Marchant A.P., De Fockert J.W. Priming by the mean representation of a set. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62(10):1889-1895.
15. Myczek K., Simons D. Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:772-788.
16. Oliva A., Torralba A. The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2007, 11:520-527.
17. Parkes L., Lund J., Angelucci A., Solomon J., Morgan M. Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience 2001, 4:739-744.
18. Robitaille N., Harris I.M. When more is less: Extraction of summary statistics benefits from larger sets. Journal of Vision 2011, 11(12):18. (1-8).
19. Schneider W., Eschman A., Zuccolotto A. E-prime reference guide 2002, Psychology Software Tools Inc., Pittsburgh.
20. Simons D., Myczek K. Average size perception and the allure of a new mechanism. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:1335-1336.
21. Treisman A. How the deployment of attention determines what we see. Visual Cognition 2006, 14:411-443.
22. Watamaniuk S.N.J., Duchon A. The human visual system averages speed information. Vision Research 1992, 32:931-942.