Literature DB >> 1956308

Predicting the shape of distance functions in curve tracing: evidence for a zoom lens operator.

P A McCormick1, P Jolicoeur.   

Abstract

Jolicoeur, Ullman, and MacKay (1986) showed that the time to confirm that two dots are on the same curve increases monotonically, but nonlinearly, as the curve distance between the two dots increases. These displays contained two curves and two dots. On same trials, the two dots were on the same curve (target curve), while the other curve served as a foil (distractor curve). The monotonically increasing effects of curve distance on response times for same trials suggested that the intervening curve segment was traced. In the present investigation of the source of the nonlinearity in these distance functions, it was hypothesized that differences in the distractor curves may have allowed a curve tracing operator with zoom lens properties to widen its receptive field while tracing parts of certain target curves. The wider receptive field may have allowed faster tracing over certain segments, owing to a reduced number of shifts required by the operator to scan the curve. The consequence of training certain segments of the curve more quickly than other segments of the curve would be a nonlinear effect of distance. A new set of stimuli was created for testing this hypothesis directly. Fairly linear distance effects were found for stimuli that contained a distractor curve that constrained the breadth of the postulated curve tracing operator, whereas stimuli that contained a distractor curve that could allow for a larger receptive field yielded nonlinear distance functions. The results are compared with the predictions of three quantitative models: pixel-by-pixel tracing; Jolicoeur, Ullman, and MacKay's (1991) bipartite operator; and a new zoom lens model, analogous to the zoom lens model of visual attention. The results were fit best by the latter model, in which tracing is accomplished by tracking the curve with a variably sized local operator.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1956308     DOI: 10.3758/bf03199570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  10 in total

1.  Size invariance in curve tracing.

Authors:  P Jolicoeur; M Ingleton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1991-01

2.  Visual curve tracing properties.

Authors:  P Jolicoeur; S Ullman; M Mackay
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  The spatial distribution of attention during covert visual orienting.

Authors:  P A McCormick; R Klein
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1990-12

4.  Movement versus focusing of visual attention.

Authors:  M Shepherd; H J Müller
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1989-08

5.  Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: a zoom lens model.

Authors:  C W Eriksen; J D St James
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1986-10

6.  Curve tracing: a possible basic operation in the perception of spatial relations.

Authors:  P Jolicoeur; S Ullman; M Mackay
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-03

7.  Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments.

Authors:  S Sternberg
Journal:  Am Sci       Date:  1969       Impact factor: 0.548

8.  Mental curve tracing with elementary stimuli.

Authors:  R Pringle; H E Egeth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Visual routines.

Authors:  S Ullman
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1984-12

10.  Attention and the detection of signals.

Authors:  M I Posner; C R Snyder; B J Davidson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.