1 / 10

Conjunction-guided selection in visual search

This study by Igor S. Utochkin explores the use of conjunctions in guiding visual search. The experiments examine the distribution of features and conjunctions among distractors and the effects of known versus unknown target features. Results suggest a "tentative binding" hypothesis, where approximate binding of features requires global attentional processing before focusing on individuals. This study was conducted as part of the Program for Basic Research of the Higher School of Economics in 2012.

folden
Download Presentation

Conjunction-guided selection in visual search

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conjunction-guided selection in visual search Igor S. Utochkin The National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Russia

  2. Guided Search (Wolfe, 1994, 1996; 2006): Features can be used to guide visual search What about conjunctions?

  3. Experiments 1 and 2 • Color × Orientation targets • Set size: 7, 13, or 37 items • Features and conjunctions distribution among distractors: • Unknown (Exp. 1) vs. Known (Exp. 2) target 2 features, 1/1 2 conjunctions, 1/1 2 features, 1/2 3 conjunctions, 1/1/1 2 features, 1/2 2 conjunctions, 1/2

  4. Experiments 1 and 2 Results

  5. Experiments 3 and 4 • Color × Orientation targets • Set size: 7, 13, or 37 items • Features and conjunctions distribution among distractors: • Unknown (Exp. 3) vs. Known (Exp. 4) target Neutral Congruent Incongruent

  6. Experiments 3 and 4 Results

  7. A “tentative binding” hypothesis • Approximate, imprecise but not accidental; • Requires some global attentional processing prior to focusing on individuals;

  8. I. Distributed attention binds features approximately (Treisman, 2006) II. Limited-capacity parallel binding (Luck & Vogel, 1997) of samples (Simons & Myszek, 2008)

  9. A “tentative binding” hypothesis • Approximate, imprecise but not accidental; • Requires some global attentional processing prior to focusing on individuals; • Primes subsequent allocation of focused attention

  10. Thank you for attention! Acknowledgements: Yulia Stakina Anna Rakova The study was conducted within the Program for basic research of the Higher School of Economics in 2012

More Related