Categorization in Hybrid Search: A Study Using Eye Movement Registration

Categorization is the process by which objects are combined according to a certain principle, which provides more efficient and cost-effective information processing. One of the topical areas of research in this field is the study of the categorical effect in perceptual tasks, for example in the task visual search task. The present study investigated the effect of the role of category (basic or superordinate) on the time of guidance - the search for a target stimulus and verification - the time of identification of a target stimulus in a hybrid search task. Subjects had to find certain objects on the screen, which could be specified either as basic-level categories (e.g., cars) or superordinate-level categories (e.g., transport vehicles). An eye-tracking method was used to separate the entire hybrid search process into a guidance and a verification. A significant effect of category level was found on the rate of guidance, but not on the rate of verification.

1. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, Vol. 63(2), pp. 81—97.
2. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and brain sciences, 2001. Vol. 24, no. 1, 87—114.
3. Rosch E., et al. Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive psychology, 1976. Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 382—439.
4. Richler J.J., Palmeri T.J. Visual category learning.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2014. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75—94.
5. Kotov A.A., Kotova T.N. Vliyanie urovnya kategorizacii na sovershenie induktivnogo vyvodadet'midvuhitrekh let. Eksperimental'nayapsihologiya, Vol. 9, no.1, pp. 82—94. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2016090107 (In Russ.).
6. Long B., et al. Mid-level perceptual features distinguish objects of different real-world sizes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2016. Vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 95.
7. Zachariou V., et al. Bottom-up processing of curvilinear visual features is sufficient for animate/inanimate object categorization. Journal of Vision, 2018. Vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 3.
8. Gauthier I., et al. Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Current Biology, 1997. Vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 645—651.
9. Margalit E., et al. Ultra-high-resolution fMRI of human ventral temporal cortex reveals differential representation of categories and domains. Journal of Neuroscience, 2020. Vol. 40, no. 15, pp. 3008—3024.
10. Praß , et al. Ultra rapid object categorization: effects of level, animacy and context. PLoS One, 2013. Vol. 8, no. 6, pp. e68051.
11. Lin E.L., Murphy G.L. Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1997. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1153.
12. Osiurak F., Rossetti Y., Badets A. What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2017. Vol. 77, 403—417.
13. Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 1998. Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 830.
14. Murphy G.L., Brownell H.H. Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 1985. Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 70.
15. Lupyan G. The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, Vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 566—577.
16. Yang H., Zelinsky G.J. Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets. Vision research, Vol. 49, no. 16, pp. 2095—2103.
17. Maxfield J.T., Zelinsky G.J. Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search. Visual cognition, Vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1153—1163.
18. Maxfield J.T., Stalder W.D., Zelinsky G.J. Effects of target typicality on categorical search. Journal of vision, Vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1.
19. Potter M.C., Hagmann C.E. Banana or fruit? Detection and recognition across categorical levels in RSVP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 578—585.
20. Zhuang T., Lingnau A. The characterization of actions at the superordinate, basic and subordinate level. Psychological research, Vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 1871—1891.
21. de la Rosa S., et al. Visual categorization of social interactions. Visual Cognition, 2014. Vol. 22, no. 9-10, pp. 1233—1271.
22. Lazareva O.F., Freiburger K.L., Wasserman E.A. Effects of stimulus manipulations on visual categorization in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, Vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 224—233.
23. Wolfe J.M. Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search? Psychological Science, 2012. Vol. 23, no. 7, 698—703.
24. Cunningham C.A., Wolfe J.M. The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 143, no.4, pp. 1585.
25. Wolfe J.M., AlaouiSoce A., Schill H.M. How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a ‘model system’for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1—10.
26. Barabanshchikov V.A., ZHegallo A.V. Metody registracii dvizhenij glaz: teoriya i praktika. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 2010. Vol. 5, pp. 240—254. (In Russ.).
27. Aĭtreking v psihologicheskoĭ naukeipraktike / Otv. red. V.A. Barabanshchikov. M.: Kogito-Centr, 2015. 410 p. (In Russ.).
28. Zelinsky G.J. A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological review, Vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 787.
29. Young A.H., Hulleman J. Eye movements reveal how task difficulty moulds visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2013. Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 168.
30. Stroud M.J., et al. Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2012. Vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 113.
31. Drew T., Boettcher S.E.P., Wolfe J.M. One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search. Journal of vision, Vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 5.
32. Hout M.C., Goldinger S.D. Target templates: The precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2015. 77, pp. 128—149.
33. Angel'gardt A.N., Makarov I.M., Gorbunova E.S. Rol' urovnya kategorii pri reshenii zadachi gibridnogo zritel'nogo poiska. Voprosy psihologii, No. 2, pp. 148—158. (In Russ.).
34. Bridges D., et al. The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, Vol. 8, pp. e9414.
35. Matematicheskie metody psihologicheskogo issledovaniya. Analiz i interpretaciya dannyh. Uchebnoe SPb.: Rech', 2004. 392 p. (In Russ.).