Size averaging of irrelevant stimuli cannot be prevented

Vision Research

Volumn 79, Issue , 2013, Pages 8-16

  Oriet, Chris ^a   Brand, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

^b Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attention; Divided attention; Gist; Perceptual averaging; Set representation

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FACILITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MENTAL TASK; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; VISUAL ORIENTATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SIZE PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84873809288     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: 18785646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alvarez G.A. Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science 2011, 15:122-131.
2. Alvarez G.A., Oliva A. The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention. Psychological Science 2008, 19:392-398.
3. Ariely D. Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science 2001, 12:157-162. 10.1111/1467-9280.00327.
4. Bauer B. Does Stevens' power law for brightness extend to perceptual brightness averaging?. Psychological Record 2009, 59:171-186.
5. Besner D., Care S. Paradigm for exploring what the mind does while deciding what it should do. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2003, 57:311-320. 10.1037/h0087434.
6. Brady T.F., Alvarez G.A. Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science 2011, 22:384-392. 10.1177/0956797610397956.
7. Brand J., Oriet C., Sykes Tottenham L. Size and emotion averaging: Costs of dividing attention after all. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2012, 66:63-69. 10.1037/a0026950.
8. Brown T.L., Gore C.L., Carr T.H. Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: Is word recognition " automatic?" Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2002, 131:220-240. 10.1037/0096/3445.131.2.220.
9. Chong S.C., Joo S.J., Emmanouil T.A., Treisman A. Statistical processing: Not so implausible after all. Perception and Psychophysics 2008, 70:1327-1334. 10.3758/PP.70.7.1327.
10. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Representation of statistical properties. Vision Research 2003, 43:393-404. 10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00596-5.
11. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Attentional spread in statistical processing of visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:1-13.
12. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Statistical processing: Computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision Research 2005, 45:891-900. 10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.004.
13. Choo H., Franconeri S.L. Objects with reduced visibility still contribute to size averaging. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:86-99.
14. 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.
15. Dakin S.C., Watt R.J. The computation of orientation statistics from visual texture. Vision Research 1997, 37:3181-3192.
16. de Fockert J.W., Marchant A.P. Attention modulates set representation by statistical properties. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:789-794. 10.3758/PP.70.5.789.
17. de Fockert J., Wolfenstein C. Rapid extraction of mean identity from sets of faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1716-1722. 10.1080/17470210902811249.
18. Emmanouil T.A., Treisman A. Dividing attention across feature dimensions in statistical processing of perceptual groups. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:946-954. 10.3758/PP.70.6.946.
19. Haberman J., Whitney D. Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology 2007, 17:751-753.
20. Haberman J., Whitney D. Seeing the mean: Summary statistical representations of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2009, 35:718-734.
21. Haberman J., Whitney D. The visual system discounts emotional deviants when extracting average expression. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:1825-1838.
22. Haberman J., Whitney D. Efficient statistical summary representation when change localization fails. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2011, 18:855-859. 10.3758/s13423-011-0125-6.
23. Jacoby, O., Kamke, M., & Mattingley, J. B. (in press). Is the whole really more than the sum of its parts? Estimates of average size and orientation are susceptible to object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
24. Joo S.J., Shin K., Chong S.C., Blake R. On the nature of the stimulus information necessary for estimating mean size of visual arrays. Journal of Vision 2009, 9(7):1-12. 10.1167/9.9.7.
25. Marchant, A. P., de Fockert, J. W., & Simons, D. J. (in press). Ensemble representations: effects of set size and item heterogeneity on average size perception. Acta Psychologica.
26. Moutoussis K., Zeki S. Functional segregation and temporal hierarchy of the visual perceptive systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1997, 264:1407-1414.
27. Myczek K., Simons D.J. Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:772-788. 10.3758/pp. 70.5.772.
28. Parkes L., Lund J., Angelucci A., Morgan M. Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience 2001, 4:739-744.
29. Rayner K., Inhoff A.W., Morrison R.E., Slowiaczek M.L., Bertera J.H. Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7:167-179.
30. Robitaille N., Harris I.M. When more is less: Extraction of summary statistics benefits from larger sets. Journal of Vision 2011, 11:1-8. 10.1167/11.12.18.
31. Schübo A., Meinecke C., Schröger E. Automaticity and attention: Investigating automatic processing in texture segmentation with event-related potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11:341-361. 10.1016/S0926 6410(01)00008-8.
32. Simons D.J., Myczek K. Average size perception and the allure of a new mechanism. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:1335-1336. 10.3758/PP.70.7.1335.
33. Watamaniuk S.N.J., Sekuler R., Williams D.W. Direction perception in complex dynamic displays: The integration of direction information. Vision Research 1989, 29:47-59.
34. Whiting B.F., Oriet C. Rapid averaging? Not so fast!. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18:484-489. 10.3758/s13423-011-0071-3.
35. Wolfe J.M., Cave R.K., Franzel L.S. Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1989, 15:419-433. 10.1037/00961523.15.33419.
36. Wolfe J.M., Friedman-Hill S.R., Stewart M.I., O'Connell K.M. The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992, 18:34-49.
37. Woodworth R.S., Schlosberg H. Experimental psychology 1954, Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, New York.