The Mechanisms of Categorical Influences on Visual Search

In order to compare the mechanisms of such influences, described in modern paradigms, we use two parameters: the accessibility of categorical information and the form of its representation. The parameter of accessibility concerns the temporal aspect: on which stage of a search task the participants have access to the categorical information. This information could beavailable during a search task or before it during the target presentation stage. The second parameter is a form of representation of categorical information. It could be represented directly as categorical knowledge, or indirectly by an object’s visual features. Our analysis showsthe following: If categorical information is available only at the target demonstration stageand represented indirectly by visual features, then it influences visual search by recalling a prototype of a target category, the visual features of which then form a search template. If a category of a scene is also available, then it helps to choose the most relevant zones in a scene for search. Additional information of distractors’ categories will draw participants’ attention to the objects which are categorically similar to a target. Finally, if categorical information isavailable directly during the search stage, it influences our attention more than visual features. There fore, we conclude that the mechanism of categorical influences on visual search depends on the amount of categorical information available to a participant. The more categorical information of objects and a scene is available to participants, the more it influences visual search performance

Treisman A., Galade G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive psychology, 1980, vol. 12, pp. 97–136.

Bravo M., Farid H. The specificity of search template. Journal of vision, 2008, vol. 9 (1), no. 34, pp. 1–9.

Fodor J. The modularity of the mind. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1983. 200 p.

Lupyan G. Cognitive Penetrability of Perception in the Age of Prediction: Predictive Systems are Penetrable Systems. Review of philosophy and psychology, 2015, vol. 6 (4), pp. 547–569.

Duncan J., Humphreys G. W. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 1989, vol. 96, pp. 433–458.

Wolfe J. M. Guided Search 4.0: Current Progress with a model of visual search. Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems. Ed. by W. Gray. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 99–119.

Alexander R. G., Zelinsky G. J. Visual similarity effects in categorical search. Journal of Vision, 2011, vol. 11 (8), no. 9, pp. 1–15.

Torralba A., Oliva A., Castelhano M., Henderson J. Contextual Guidance of Eye Movements and Attention in Real-World Scenes: The Role of Global Features in Object Search. Psychological Review, 2006, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 766–786.

Hwang A., Wang H., Pomplun M. Semantic guidance of eye movements in real-world scenes. Vision Research, 2011, vol. 51, pp. 1192–1205.

Schmidt J., Zelinsky G. Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2009, vol. 62 (10), pp. 1904–1914.

Maxfield J., Stalder W., Zelinsky G. Effects of target typicality on categorical search. Journal of Vision, 2014, vol. 14 (12), no. 1, pp. 1–11.

Potter M. C. Conceptual short-term memory in perception and thought.

Frontiers in Psychology, 2012, vol. 3, pp. 1–13.

 

Itti L., Koc C. Computational modelling of visual attention. Nature reviews neuroscience, 2001, vol. 2 (3), pp. 194–203.

Labelme Database. Available at: http://labelme.csail.mit.edu (accessed: 03.12.2018).

Chia-Chien W., Farahnaz A. W., Pomplun M. Guidance of visual attention by semantic information in real-world scenes. Frontiers in psychology, 2004, vol. 54, pp. 1–13.

Huettig F., Altmann G. Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 2005, vol. 96 (1), pp. 23–32.

Mirman D., Magnuson J. Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 2009, vol. 37, pp. 1026–1039.

Allopenna P. D., Magnuson J. S., Tanenhaus M. K. Tracking the Time course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 1998, vol. 38, pp. 419−439.

Huettig F., Altmann G. Visual-shape Competition During Language Mediated Attention is Based on Lexical Input and not Modulated by Contextual Appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 2007, vol. 15, pp. 985−1018.

Huettig F., McQueen J. The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 2007, vol. 57 (4), pp. 460–482.

Groot F., Huettig F., Olivers C. When Meaning Matters: The Temporal Dynamics of Semantic Influences on Visual Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2016, vol. 42 (2), pp. 180–196.

Huettig F., Olivers C., Hartsuiker R. J. Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 2011, vol. 137, pp. 138–150.