Literature DB >> 24105460

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

Gregory J Zelinsky1, Yifan Peng, Alexander C Berg, Dimitris Samaras.   

Abstract

Search is commonly described as a repeating cycle of guidance to target-like objects, followed by the recognition of these objects as targets or distractors. Are these indeed separate processes using different visual features? We addressed this question by comparing observer behavior to that of support vector machine (SVM) models trained on guidance and recognition tasks. Observers searched for a categorically defined teddy bear target in four-object arrays. Target-absent trials consisted of random category distractors rated in their visual similarity to teddy bears. Guidance, quantified as first-fixated objects during search, was strongest for targets, followed by target-similar, medium-similarity, and target-dissimilar distractors. False positive errors to first-fixated distractors also decreased with increasing dissimilarity to the target category. To model guidance, nine teddy bear detectors, using features ranging in biological plausibility, were trained on unblurred bears then tested on blurred versions of the same objects appearing in each search display. Guidance estimates were based on target probabilities obtained from these detectors. To model recognition, nine bear/nonbear classifiers, trained and tested on unblurred objects, were used to classify the object that would be fixated first (based on the detector estimates) as a teddy bear or a distractor. Patterns of categorical guidance and recognition accuracy were modeled almost perfectly by an HMAX model in combination with a color histogram feature. We conclude that guidance and recognition in the context of search are not separate processes mediated by different features, and that what the literature knows as guidance is really recognition performed on blurred objects viewed in the visual periphery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  categorical guidance; classifiers; eye movements; object detection; visual similarity

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24105460      PMCID: PMC3793629          DOI: 10.1167/13.3.30

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


  72 in total

1.  The psychophysics of visual search.

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

2.  Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition.

Authors:  I Gauthier; P Skudlarski; J C Gore; A W Anderson
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception.

Authors:  Melissa L-H Võ; John M Henderson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  The guidance of eye movements during active visual search.

Authors:  B C Motter; E J Belky
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search.

Authors:  L Chelazzi; J Duncan; E K Miller; R Desimone
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding.

Authors:  Irving Biederman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry.

Authors:  C Koch; S Ullman
Journal:  Hum Neurobiol       Date:  1985

8.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing.

Authors:  G R Loftus; N H Mackworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Visual receptive fields of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the monkey.

Authors:  C G Gross; D B Bender; C E Rocha-Miranda
Journal:  Science       Date:  1969-12-05       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Searching Through the Hierarchy: How Level of Target Categorization Affects Visual Search.

Authors:  Justin T Maxfield; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2012-11-12
View more
  10 in total

1.  Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling.

Authors:  Casimir J H Ludwig; J Rhys Davies; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky; Hossein Adeli; Yifan Peng; Dimitris Samaras
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: evidence from contralateral delay activity.

Authors:  Joseph Schmidt; Annmarie MacNamara; Greg Hajcak Proudfit; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  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

5.  Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.

Authors:  Ashley M Phelps; Robert G Alexander; Joseph Schmidt
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 1.984

Review 6.  Using multidimensional scaling to quantify similarity in visual search and beyond.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Hayward J Godwin; Gemma Fitzsimmons; Arryn Robbins; Tamaryn Menneer; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Searching for Category-Consistent Features: A Computational Approach to Understanding Visual Category Representation.

Authors:  Chen-Ping Yu; Justin T Maxfield; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2016-05-03

8.  COCO-Search18 fixation dataset for predicting goal-directed attention control.

Authors:  Yupei Chen; Zhibo Yang; Seoyoung Ahn; Dimitris Samaras; Minh Hoai; Gregory Zelinsky
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Occluded information is restored at preview but not during visual search.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 10.  What do radiologists look for? Advances and limitations of perceptual learning in radiologic search.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Stephen Waite; Stephen L Macknik; Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 2.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.