Previewing scenes briefly makes finding target objects more efficient when viewing is through a gazecontingent window (windowed viewing). In contrast, showing a preview of a randomly arranged search display does not benefit search efficiency when viewing during search is of the full display. Here, we tested whether a scene preview is beneficial when the scene is fully visible during search. Scene previews, when presented, were 250 ms in duration. During search, the scene was either fully visible or windowed. A preview always provided an advantage, in terms of decreasing the time to initially fixate and respond to targets and in terms of the total number of fixations. In windowed visibility, a preview reduced the distance of fixations from the target position until at least the fourth fixation. In full visibility, previewing reduced the distance of the second fixation but not of later fixations. The gist information derived from the initial glimpse of a scene allowed for placement of the first one or two fixations at information-rich locations, but when nonfoveal information was available, subsequent eye movements were only guided by online information.

Are overlapping objects easier to recognize when the objects are transparent or opaque? It is important to know whether the transparency of X-ray images of luggage contributes to the difficulty in searching those images for targets. Transparency provides extra information about objects that would normally be occluded but creates potentially ambiguous depth relations at the region of overlap. Two experiments investigated the threshold durations at which adult participants could accurately name pairs of overlapping objects that were opaque or transparent. In Experiment 1, the transparent displays included monocular cues to relative depth. Recognition of the back object was possible at shorter durations for transparent displays than for opaque displays. In Experiment 2, the transparent displays had no monocular depth cues. There was no difference in the duration at which the back object was recognized across transparent and opaque displays. The results of the two experiments suggest that transparent displays, even though less familiar than opaque displays, do not make object recognition more difficult, and possibly show a benefit. These findings call into question the importance of edge junctions in object recognition.

Are overlapping objects easier to recognize when the objects are transparent or opaque? It is important to know whether the transparency of X-ray images of luggage contributes to the difficulty in searching those images for targets. Transparency provides extra information about objects that would normally be occluded but creates potentially ambiguous depth relations at the region of overlap. Two experiments investigated the threshold durations at which adult participants could accurately name pairs of overlapping objects that were opaque or transparent. In Experiment 1, the transparent displays included monocular cues to relative depth. Recognition of the back object was possible at shorter durations for transparent displays than for opaque displays. In Experiment 2, the transparent displays had no monocular depth cues. ; there was no difference in the duration at which the back object was recognized across transparent and opaque displays. The results of the two experiments suggest that transparent displays, even though less familiar than opaque displays, do not make object recognition more difficult, and possibly show a benefit. These findings call into question the importance of edge junctions in object recognition.

No abstract