Literature DB >> 33025465

The misrepresentation of spatial uncertainty in visual search: Single- versus joint-distribution probability cues.

Bradley S Gibson1, Joseph R Pauszek2, Jamie M Trost2, Michael J Wenger3.   

Abstract

The present study used information theory to quantify the extent to which different spatial cues conveyed the entropy associated with the identity and location of a visual search target. Single-distribution cues reflected the probability that the target would appear at one fixed location whereas joint-distribution cues reflected the probability that the target would appear at the location where another cue (arrow) pointed. The present study used a novel demand-selection paradigm to examine the extent to which individuals explicitly preferred one type of probability cue over the other. Although both cues conveyed equal entropy, the main results suggested representation of greater target entropy for joint- than for single-distribution cues based on a comparison between predicted and observed probability cue choices across four experiments. The present findings emphasize the importance of understanding how individuals represent basic information-theoretic quantities that underlie more complex decision-theoretic processes such as Bayesian and active inference.

Keywords:  Attention: space-based; Visual perception; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33025465     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02145-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  33 in total

1.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.

Authors:  C L Folk; R W Remington; J C Johnston
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Absolute judgments as a function of stimulus range and number of stimulus and response categories.

Authors:  C W ERIKSEN; H W HAKE
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1955-05

3.  Multidimensional stimulus differences and accuracy of discrimination.

Authors:  C W ERIKSEN; H W HAKE
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1955-09

4.  Object location in a complex perceptual field.

Authors:  C W ERIKSEN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1953-02

5.  Going rogue in the spatial cuing paradigm: high spatial validity is insufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention.

Authors:  Gregory J Davis; Bradley S Gibson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks.

Authors:  Rafal Bogacz; Eric Brown; Jeff Moehlis; Philip Holmes; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Inhibition within a reference frame during the interpretation of spatial language.

Authors:  Laura A Carlson; Shannon R Van Deman
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-04-20

8.  Not noisy, just wrong: the role of suboptimal inference in behavioral variability.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Beck; Wei Ji Ma; Xaq Pitkow; Peter E Latham; Alexandre Pouget
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 9.  The Spatial Orienting paradigm: how to design and interpret spatial attention experiments.

Authors:  Ana B Chica; Elisa Martín-Arévalo; Fabiano Botta; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 8.989

10.  A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning.

Authors:  Rafal Bogacz
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.