Literature DB >> 22685337

Does precision decrease with set size?

Helga Mazyar1, Ronald van den Berg, Wei Ji Ma.   

Abstract

The brain encodes visual information with limited precision. Contradictory evidence exists as to whether the precision with which an item is encoded depends on the number of stimuli in a display (set size). Some studies have found evidence that precision decreases with set size, but others have reported constant precision. These groups of studies differed in two ways. The studies that reported a decrease used displays with heterogeneous stimuli and tasks with a short-term memory component, while the ones that reported constancy used homogeneous stimuli and tasks that did not require short-term memory. To disentangle the effects of heterogeneity and short-memory involvement, we conducted two main experiments. In Experiment 1, stimuli were heterogeneous, and we compared a condition in which target identity was revealed before the stimulus display with one in which it was revealed afterward. In Experiment 2, target identity was fixed, and we compared heterogeneous and homogeneous distractor conditions. In both experiments, we compared an optimal-observer model in which precision is constant with set size with one in which it depends on set size. We found that precision decreases with set size when the distractors are heterogeneous, regardless of whether short-term memory is involved, but not when it is homogeneous. This suggests that heterogeneity, not short-term memory, is the critical factor. In addition, we found that precision exhibits variability across items and trials, which may partly be caused by attentional fluctuations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22685337      PMCID: PMC3677801          DOI: 10.1167/12.6.10

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


  27 in total

1.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.223

2.  The psychophysics of visual search.

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

3.  Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes.

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Jeffrey M Beck; Peter E Latham; Alexandre Pouget
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations.

Authors:  Ronald van den Berg; Hongsup Shin; Wen-Chuang Chou; Ryan George; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhang; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Optimal feature integration in visual search.

Authors:  Benjamin T Vincent; Roland J Baddeley; Tom Troscianko; Iain D Gilchrist
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information.

Authors:  J Palmer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  A theory for the use of visual orientation information which exploits the columnar structure of striate cortex.

Authors:  M A Paradiso
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.086

9.  Set-size effects in visual search: the effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks.

Authors:  J Palmer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Visual clutter causes high-magnitude errors.

Authors:  Stefano Baldassi; Nicola Megna; David C Burr
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  22 in total

1.  Variable precision in visual perception.

Authors:  Shan Shen; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Divided attention limits perception of 3-D object shapes.

Authors:  Alec Scharff; John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Independence is elusive: set size effects on encoding precision in visual search.

Authors:  Helga Mazyar; Ronald van den Berg; Robert L Seilheimer; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 4.  Changing concepts of working memory.

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Masud Husain; Paul M Bays
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 24.884

5.  Why do people appear not to extrapolate trajectories during multiple object tracking? A computational investigation.

Authors:  Sheng-Hua Zhong; Zheng Ma; Colin Wilson; Yan Liu; Jonathan I Flombaum
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  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

7.  Monkeys and humans take local uncertainty into account when localizing a change.

Authors:  Deepna Devkar; Anthony A Wright; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Visual Decisions in the Presence of Measurement and Stimulus Correlations.

Authors:  Manisha Bhardwaj; Samuel Carroll; Wei Ji Ma; Krešimir Josić
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.026

9.  Evidence for a fixed capacity limit in attending multiple locations.

Authors:  Edward F Ester; Keisuke Fukuda; Lisa M May; Edward K Vogel; Edward Awh
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Attending multiple items decreases the selectivity of population responses in human primary visual cortex.

Authors:  David E Anderson; Edward F Ester; John T Serences; Edward Awh
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.