Literature DB >> 22561524

Turning visual search time on its head.

S P Arun1.   

Abstract

Our everyday visual experience frequently involves searching for objects in clutter. Why are some searches easy and others hard? It is generally believed that the time taken to find a target increases as it becomes similar to its surrounding distractors. Here, I show that while this is qualitatively true, the exact relationship is in fact not linear. In a simple search experiment, when subjects searched for a bar differing in orientation from its distractors, search time was inversely proportional to the angular difference in orientation. Thus, rather than taking search reaction time (RT) to be a measure of target-distractor similarity, we can literally turn search time on its head (i.e. take its reciprocal 1/RT) to obtain a measure of search dissimilarity that varies linearly over a large range of target-distractor differences. I show that this dissimilarity measure has the properties of a distance metric, and report two interesting insights come from this measure: First, for a large number of searches, search asymmetries are relatively rare and when they do occur, differ by a fixed distance. Second, search distances can be used to elucidate object representations that underlie search - for example, these representations are roughly invariant to three-dimensional view. Finally, search distance has a straightforward interpretation in the context of accumulator models of search, where it is proportional to the discriminative signal that is integrated to produce a response. This is consistent with recent studies that have linked this distance to neuronal discriminability in visual cortex. Thus, while search time remains the more direct measure of visual search, its reciprocal also has the potential for interesting and novel insights.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22561524      PMCID: PMC6087462          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.04.005

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


  33 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

Review 3.  Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach.

Authors:  P Verghese
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2001-08-30       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation.

Authors:  J M Wolfe; S R Friedman-Hill; M I Stewart; K M O'Connell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Cutting through the clutter: searching for targets in evolving complex scenes.

Authors:  Mark B Neider; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe; K R Cave; S L Franzel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Search asymmetries: parallel processing of uncertain sensory information.

Authors:  Benjamin T Vincent
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Asymmetries in simple feature searches for color.

Authors:  A Nagy; S M Cone
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys.

Authors:  N K Logothetis; J Pauls; T Poggio
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Global image dissimilarity in macaque inferotemporal cortex predicts human visual search efficiency.

Authors:  Arun P Sripati; Carl R Olson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  15 in total

1.  A compositional neural code in high-level visual cortex can explain jumbled word reading.

Authors:  Aakash Agrawal; Kvs Hari; S P Arun
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Attentional modulation: target selection, active search and cognitive processing.

Authors:  Marisa Carrasco; Miguel Eckstein; Rich Krauzlis; Preeti Verghese
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Feature similarity is non-linearly related to attentional selection: Evidence from visual search and sustained attention tasks.

Authors:  Angus F Chapman; Viola S Störmer
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.004

4.  Letter processing in upright bigrams predicts reading fluency variations in children.

Authors:  Aakash Agrawal; Sonali Nag; K V S Hari; S P Arun
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2022-02-10

5.  Features in visual search combine linearly.

Authors:  R T Pramod; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Object attributes combine additively in visual search.

Authors:  R T Pramod; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Does linear separability really matter? Complex visual search is explained by simple search.

Authors:  T Vighneshvel; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Texture discriminability in monkey inferotemporal cortex predicts human texture perception.

Authors:  Kalathupiriyan A Zhivago; Sripati P Arun
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Look before you seek: Preview adds a fixed benefit to all searches.

Authors:  Sricharan Sunder; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Symmetric Objects Become Special in Perception Because of Generic Computations in Neurons.

Authors:  R T Pramod; S P Arun
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.