Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr 1;22(3-4):595-609.
doi: 10.1080/13506285.2014.890989.

Are summary statistics enough? Evidence for the importance of shape in guiding visual search

Affiliations

Are summary statistics enough? Evidence for the importance of shape in guiding visual search

Robert G Alexander et al. Vis cogn. .

Abstract

Peripheral vision outside the focus of attention may rely on summary statistics. We used a gaze-contingent paradigm to directly test this assumption by asking whether search performance differed between targets and statistically-matched visualizations of the same targets. Four-object search displays included one statistically-matched object that was replaced by an unaltered version of the object during the first eye movement. Targets were designated by previews, which were never altered. Two types of statistically-matched objects were tested: One that maintained global shape and one that did not. Differences in guidance were found between targets and statistically-matched objects when shape was not preserved, suggesting that they were not informationally equivalent. Responses were also slower after target fixation when shape was not preserved, suggesting an extrafoveal processing of the target that again used shape information. We conclude that summary statistics must include some global shape information to approximate the peripheral information used during search.

Keywords: Extrafoveal processing; Eye movements; Gaze contingent; Shape; Summary statistics; Visual search guidance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of unaltered targets, seeds, and synthetic images generated from each seed. See text for additional details.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Procedure illustrating a trial from the noise-seed lure condition.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportion of trials in which the target (dark gray bars), lure (light gray bars), or non-lure distractors (medium gray bars) was the first object fixated in each of the five experimental conditions. The horizontal dashed line indicates the level of preferential fixation predicted by chance, and error bars indicate one standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Time from search display onset to first fixation on the target for each of the five experimental conditions. Error bars indicate one standard error of the mean.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Time from first fixation on the target until the button press response for each of the five experimental conditions. Noise-seed and shape-preserved lure conditions were included here for consistency with the other figures, although no effect on target verification time was expected in these conditions. Error bars indicate one standard error of the mean.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Vol. 359. John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
    1. Alexander RG, Zelinsky GJ. Visual similarity effects in categorical search. Journal of Vision. 2011;11(8):9, 1–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alexander RG, Zelinsky GJ. Effects of part-based similarity on visual search: The Frankenbear experiment. Vision Research. 2012;54:20–30. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alvarez GA. Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2011;15(3):122–131. - PubMed
    1. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008;59(4):390–412.

LinkOut - more resources