Literature DB >> 22131446

Covert visual search: prior beliefs are optimally combined with sensory evidence.

Benjamin Vincent1.   

Abstract

Has evolution optimized visual selective attention to make the best possible use of all information available? If so, then Bayesian optimal performance in a localization task is achieved by optimally weighting the visual evidence with one's prior spatial expectations. In 2 psychophysical experiments, participants conducted covert target localization where both visual cues and prior expectations were available. The amount of information conveyed by the visual evidence was held constant, while the degree of belief was manipulated via peripheral cuing (Experiment 1) and spatial probabilities (Experiment 2). A number of findings result: (1) People appear to optimally combine slightly biased prior beliefs with sensory evidence. (2) These biases are directly comparable to those descriptively accounted for by the Prospect Theory. (3) Probabilistic information about a target's upcoming location is integrated identically, irrespective of whether endogenous or exogenous cuing is used. (4) In localization tasks, spatial attention can be understood and quantitatively modeled as a set of prior expectations over space that modulate incoming noisy sensory evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22131446     DOI: 10.1167/11.13.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  9 in total

1.  Expectations developed over multiple timescales facilitate visual search performance.

Authors:  Nikos Gekas; Aaron R Seitz; Peggy Seriès
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Requiem for the max rule?

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Shan Shen; Gintare Dziugaite; Ronald van den Berg
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Rethinking human visual attention: spatial cueing effects and optimality of decisions by honeybees, monkeys and humans.

Authors:  Miguel P Eckstein; Stephen C Mack; Dorion B Liston; Lisa Bogush; Randolf Menzel; Richard J Krauzlis
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Dobromir Rahnev; Rachel N Denison
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 12.579

5.  Impact of relative and absolute values on selective attention.

Authors:  Sunghyun Kim; Melissa R Beck
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-08

6.  The Ecological View of Selective Attention.

Authors:  Tidhar Lev-Ari; Hadar Beeri; Yoram Gutfreund
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-21

7.  Combining symbolic cues with sensory input and prior experience in an iterative bayesian framework.

Authors:  Frederike H Petzschner; Paul Maier; Stefan Glasauer
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2012-08-13

8.  Endogenous and exogenous control of visuospatial selective attention in freely behaving mice.

Authors:  Wen-Kai You; Shreesh P Mysore
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Diminishing sensitivity and absolute difference in value-driven attention.

Authors:  Sunghyun Kim; Jason L Harman; Melissa R Beck
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.