Explaining the Effects of Distractor Statistics in Visual Search

Overview

Journal J Vis

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2020 Dec 17

PMID 33331851

Citations 3

Authors

Joshua Calder-Travis

Wei Ji Ma

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Visual search, the task of detecting or locating target items among distractor items in a visual scene, is an important function for animals and humans. Different theoretical accounts make differing predictions for the effects of distractor statistics. Here we use a task in which we parametrically vary distractor items, allowing for a simultaneously fine-grained and comprehensive study of distractor statistics. We found effects of target-distractor similarity, distractor variability, and an interaction between the two, although the effect of the interaction on performance differed from the one expected. To explain these findings, we constructed computational process models that make trial-by-trial predictions for behavior based on the stimulus presented. These models, including a Bayesian observer model, provided excellent accounts of both the qualitative and quantitative effects of distractor statistics, as well as of the effect of changing the statistics of the environment (in the form of distractors being drawn from a different distribution). We conclude with a broader discussion of the role of computational process models in the understanding of visual search.

Citing Articles

Perceptual adaptation to dysarthric speech is modulated by concurrent phonological processing: A dual task study.

Adank P, Wang H, Hepworth T, Borrie S J Acoust Soc Am. 2025; 157(3):1598-1611.

PMID: 40063084 PMC: 11905114. DOI: 10.1121/10.0035883.

Perceptual Learning of Noise-Vocoded Speech Under Divided Attention.

Wang H, Chen R, Yan Y, McGettigan C, Rosen S, Adank P Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231192297.

PMID: 37547940 PMC: 10408355. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231192297.

How do (perceptual) distracters distract?.

Dumbalska T, Rudzka K, Smithson H, Summerfield C PLoS Comput Biol. 2022; 18(10):e1010609.

PMID: 36228038 PMC: 9595561. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010609.

Classic Visual Search Effects in an Additional Singleton Task: An Open Dataset.

Adam K, Patel T, Rangan N, Serences J J Cogn. 2021; 4(1):34.

PMID: 34396037 PMC: 8323537. DOI: 10.5334/joc.182.

References

Rosenholtz R . Visual search for orientation among heterogeneous distractors: experimental results and implications for signal-detection theory models of search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001; 27(4):985-99. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.985. View

Pelli D, Tillman K . The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nat Neurosci. 2008; 11(10):1129-35. PMC: 2772078. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2187. View

Eckstein M, Thomas J, Palmer J, Shimozaki S . A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays. Percept Psychophys. 2000; 62(3):425-51. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212096. View

Murray R, Morgenstern Y . Cue combination on the circle and the sphere. J Vis. 2010; 10(11):15. DOI: 10.1167/10.11.15. View

Duncan J, Humphreys G . Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev. 1989; 96(3):433-58. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.433. View

Pelli D . The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):437-42. View

Rosen S, Chakravarthi R, Pelli D . The Bouma law of crowding, revised: critical spacing is equal across parts, not objects. J Vis. 2014; 14(6):10. PMC: 4527718. DOI: 10.1167/14.6.10. View

Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

Neisser U . VISUAL SEARCH. Sci Am. 1964; 210:94-102. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0664-94. View

10.

Stengard E, van den Berg R . Imperfect Bayesian inference in visual perception. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019; 15(4):e1006465. PMC: 6472731. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006465. View

11.

Geisler W, Chou K . Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: visual search. Psychol Rev. 1995; 102(2):356-78. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.356. View

12.

Bhardwaj M, van den Berg R, Ma W, Josic K . Do People Take Stimulus Correlations into Account in Visual Search?. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0149402. PMC: 4786311. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149402. View

13.

Cameron E, Tai J, Eckstein M, Carrasco M . Signal detection theory applied to three visual search tasks--identification, yes/no detection and localization. Spat Vis. 2004; 17(4-5):295-325. DOI: 10.1163/1568568041920212. View

14.

ESTES W, Taylor H . A DETECTION METHOD AND PROBALISTIC MODELS FOR ASSESSING INFORMATION PROCESSING FROM BRIEF VISUAL DISPLAYS. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1964; 52:446-54. PMC: 300298. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.52.2.446. View

15.

Shen S, Ma W . Variable precision in visual perception. Psychol Rev. 2018; 126(1):89-132. PMC: 6318066. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000128. View

16.

Ma W, Navalpakkam V, Beck J, van den Berg R, Pouget A . Behavior and neural basis of near-optimal visual search. Nat Neurosci. 2011; 14(6):783-90. PMC: 3713779. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2814. View

17.

Levi D . Visual crowding. Curr Biol. 2011; 21(18):R678-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.025. View

18.

Najemnik J, Geisler W . Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search. Nature. 2005; 434(7031):387-91. DOI: 10.1038/nature03390. View

19.

Palmer J, AMES C, Lindsey D . Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993; 19(1):108-30. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.19.1.108. View

20.

Ma W, Shen S, Dziugaite G, van den Berg R . Requiem for the max rule?. Vision Res. 2015; 116(Pt B):179-93. PMC: 4676958. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2014.12.019. View