Literature DB >> 22227607

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

Robert G Alexander1, Gregory J Zelinsky.   

Abstract

Do the target-distractor and distractor-distractor similarity relationships known to exist for simple stimuli extend to real-world objects, and are these effects expressed in search guidance or target verification? Parts of photorealistic distractors were replaced with target parts to create four levels of target-distractor similarity under heterogenous and homogenous conditions. We found that increasing target-distractor similarity and decreasing distractor-distractor similarity impaired search guidance and target verification, but that target-distractor similarity and heterogeneity/homogeneity interacted only in measures of guidance; distractor homogeneity lessens effects of target-distractor similarity by causing gaze to fixate the target sooner, not by speeding target detection following its fixation.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22227607      PMCID: PMC3345177          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.12.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  41 in total

1.  The psychophysics of visual search.

Authors:  J Palmer; P Verghese; M Pavel
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  Representation is representation of similarities.

Authors:  S Edelman
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 12.579

3.  Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention.

Authors:  Elisabeth Moores; Liana Laiti; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Panoramic search: the interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene.

Authors:  Aude Oliva; Jeremy M Wolfe; Helga C Arsenio
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement.

Authors:  J Duncan; G Humphreys
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  A conjunctive feature similarity effect for visual search.

Authors:  Yuji Takeda; Steven Phillips; Takatsune Kumada
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search?

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker; Ulrich Ansorge; Gernot Horstmann
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  The specificity of the search template.

Authors:  Mary J Bravo; Hany Farid
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-01-23       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  A new look at novelty effects: guiding search away from old distractors.

Authors:  Hyejin Yang; Xin Chen; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search.

Authors:  G J Zelinsky; D L Sheinberg
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  16 in total

1.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual spaces.

Authors:  Sandro Rama Fiorini; Peter Gärdenfors; Mara Abel
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2013-10-22

2.  Modeling guidance and recognition in categorical search: bridging human and computer object detection.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky; Yifan Peng; Alexander C Berg; Dimitris Samaras
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Effects of target typicality on categorical search.

Authors:  Justin T Maxfield; Westri D Stalder; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Eye can read your mind: decoding gaze fixations to reveal categorical search targets.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky; Yifan Peng; Dimitris Samaras
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Are summary statistics enough? Evidence for the importance of shape in guiding visual search.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Joseph Schmidt; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2014-04-01

6.  Incidental memory following rapid object processing: The role of attention allocation strategies.

Authors:  Juan D Guevara Pinto; Megan H Papesh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 7.  Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology.

Authors:  Robert Alexander; Stephen Waite; Michael A Bruno; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Leonard Berlin; Stephen Macknik; Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 29.146

8.  Searching for something familiar or novel: top-down attentional selection of specific items or object categories.

Authors:  Rachel Wu; Gaia Scerif; Richard N Aslin; Tim J Smith; Rebecca Nako; Martin Eimer
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2013-01-02       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 9.  Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Fahd Yazdanie; Stephen Waite; Zeshan A Chaudhry; Srinivas Kolla; Stephen L Macknik; Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 5.152

10.  Turning visual search time on its head.

Authors:  S P Arun
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.