Literature DB >> 25274990

Effects of target typicality on categorical search.

Justin T Maxfield1, Westri D Stalder1, Gregory J Zelinsky2.   

Abstract

The role of target typicality in a categorical visual search task was investigated by cueing observers with a target name, followed by a five-item target present/absent search array in which the target images were rated in a pretest to be high, medium, or low in typicality with respect to the basic-level target cue. Contrary to previous work, we found that search guidance was better for high-typicality targets compared to low-typicality targets, as measured by both the proportion of immediate target fixations and the time to fixate the target. Consistent with previous work, we also found an effect of typicality on target verification times, the time between target fixation and the search judgment; as target typicality decreased, verification times increased. To model these typicality effects, we trained Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers on the target categories, and tested these on the corresponding specific targets used in the search task. This analysis revealed significant differences in classifier confidence between the high-, medium-, and low-typicality groups, paralleling the behavioral results. Collectively, these findings suggest that target typicality broadly affects both search guidance and verification, and that differences in typicality can be predicted by distance from an SVM classification boundary.
© 2014 ARVO.

Keywords:  categorization classification; eye movements; typicality; visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25274990      PMCID: PMC4181372          DOI: 10.1167/14.12.1

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


  24 in total

1.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.

Authors:  J K Kruschke
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Setting up the target template in visual search.

Authors:  Timothy J Vickery; Li-Wei King; Yuhong Jiang
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue.

Authors:  Joseph Schmidt; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 2.143

4.  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

5.  Perceptual separability, decisional separability, and the identification-speeded classification relationship.

Authors:  W T Maddox; F G Ashby
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.

Authors:  G L Murphy; H H Brownell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  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

8.  Objects, parts, and categories.

Authors:  B Tversky; K Hemenway
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1984-06

Review 9.  Human category learning.

Authors:  F Gregory Ashby; W Todd Maddox
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 24.137

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
  17 in total

1.  Using space to represent categories: insights from gaze position.

Authors:  Corinna S Martarelli; Sandra Chiquet; Bruno Laeng; Fred W Mast
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-06-15

2.  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

3.  Typicality modulates attentional capture by object categories.

Authors:  Y Isabella Lim; Andrew Clement; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  The influence of category representativeness on the low prevalence effect in visual search.

Authors:  Ryan E O'Donnell; Brad Wyble
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-09-22

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.  Categorical cuing: Object categories structure the acquisition of statistical regularities to guide visual search.

Authors:  Brett Bahle; Ariel M Kershner; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2021-04-08

8.  On the Hunt: Searching for Poorly Defined Camouflaged Targets.

Authors:  Alyssa S Hess; Andrew J Wismer; Corey J Bohil; Mark B Neider
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The anterior temporal cortex is a primary semantic source of top-down influences on object recognition.

Authors:  Rocco Chiou; Matthew A Lambon Ralph
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 4.027

10.  Components of Attention in Grapheme-Color Synesthesia: A Modeling Approach.

Authors:  Árni Gunnar Ásgeirsson; Maria Nordfang; Thomas Alrik Sørensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.