Coarse guidance by numerosity in visual search

Reijnen, Ester; Wolfe, Jeremy M.; Krummenacher, Joseph

doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0379-8

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on previous research on selective attention using visual search tasks, we expected the TBF/TBR ratio to modulate the SDF effect. Reijnen et al (2013) found that search efficiency is determined by the target-to-distractor ratio rather than by the absolute difference between the number of distractor and target stimuli. Of relevance for our study, they found an asymmetry effect whereby searching for a smaller number of items among a large set was harder than searching for a larger number among a smaller set of items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Based on previous findings in the realm of visual selective attention (Reijnen et al, 2013), we assumed that correctly performing the SDF task (that is, selecting the forget items and forgetting them) might be harder with low proportion of TBF items. The results of Experiment 3 support this assumption and indicate that the TBF/TBR items ratio modulates the ability to intentionally forget in a selective way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further support for the idea that SDF recruits executive control comes from the results from Experiment 3, where the TBF/TBR ratio was manipulated and SDF was observed only in the condition where a larger proportion of characters (two out of three) were to be forgotten. Based on previous findings in the realm of visual selective attention ( Reijnen et al, 2013 ), we assumed that correctly performing the SDF task (that is, selecting the forget items and forgetting them) might be harder with low proportion of TBF items. The results of Experiment 3 support this assumption and indicate that the TBF/TBR items ratio modulates the ability to intentionally forget in a selective way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, SDF could be present under some conditions and absent under others. Based on research regarding visual search ( Reijnen et al, 2013 ), we assumed that the proportion of the TBF information (which is supposed to be information to be selected in order to forget it) relative to the TBR information would play a role in the capacity to selectively forget. Thus, in the present experiment we attempt to elucidate if the degree of selectivity demanded by the cue to forget modulates the SDF effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring Mechanisms of Selective Directed Forgetting

Aguirre¹,

Gómez‐Ariza²,

Andrés³

et al. 2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While some studies have shown that providing a cue to selectively forget one subset of previously learned facts may cause specific forgetting of this information, little is known about the mechanisms underlying this memory phenomenon. In three experiments, we aimed to better understand the nature of the selective directed forgetting (SDF) effect. Participants studied a List 1 consisting of 18 sentences regarding two (or three) different characters and a List 2 consisting of sentences regarding an additional character. In Experiment 1, we explored the role of rehearsal as the mechanism producing SDF by examining the effect of articulatory suppression after List 1 and during List 2 presentation. In Experiments 2 and 3, we explored the role of attentional control mechanisms by introducing a concurrent updating task after List 1 and during List 2 (Experiment 2) and by manipulating the number of characters to be selectively forgotten (1 out of 3 vs. 2 out of 3). Results from the three experiments suggest that neither rehearsal nor context change seem to be the mechanisms underlying SDF, while the pattern of results is consistent with an inhibitory account. In addition, whatever the responsible mechanism is, SDF seems to rely on the available attentional resources and the demands of the task. Our results join other findings to show that SDF is a robust phenomenon and suggest boundary conditions for the effect to be observed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring Mechanisms of Selective Directed Forgetting

Aguirre¹,

Gómez‐Ariza²,

Andrés³

et al. 2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It might be argued that, in the numerosity comparison task performed in the above experiments, the comparison judgment could be confounded by other perceptual attributes of the displays, such as density or area, and other local features rather than being based on the actual representation of dot numerosity (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). We, therefore, used, instead of the comparison task, a subjective estimation task, which required observers to report the number of dots directly (19).…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Topology-defined units in numerosity perception

Zhou

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is a number? The number sense hypothesis suggests that numerosity is "a primary visual property" like color, contrast, or orientation. However, exactly what attribute of a stimulus is the primary visual property and determines numbers in the number sense? To verify the invariant nature of numerosity perception, we manipulated the numbers of items connected/enclosed in arbitrary and irregular forms while controlling for low-level features (e.g., orientation, color, and size). Subjects performed discrimination, estimation, and equality judgment tasks in a wide range of presentation durations and across small and large numbers. Results consistently show that connecting/ enclosing items led to robust numerosity underestimation, with the extent of underestimation increasing monotonically with the number of connected/enclosed items. In contrast, grouping based on color similarity had no effect on numerosity judgment. We propose that numbers or the primitive units counted in numerosity perception are influenced by topological invariants, such as connectivity and the inside/outside relationship. Beyond the behavioral measures, neural tuning curves to numerosity in the intraparietal sulcus were obtained using functional MRI adaptation, and the tuning curves showed that numbers represented in the intraparietal sulcus were strongly influenced by topology.W hat is a number? The answer to this age-old and fundamental question of philosophy has increasingly benefited from recent scientific investigation using psychology and neuroscience. The number sense hypothesis (1, 2) suggests that a number is "a basic property of the environment" (3) and particularly, because of its remarkable adaptation effect, "a primary visual property" (2), like color, contrast, or orientation (2-8). However, exactly what attribute in the environment is the primary property and determines numbers in the number sense, or more concretely, what is counted in numerosity perception? Consider the invariant nature of numerosity perception. It is self-evident that numerosity is invariant to specific features (e.g., orientation, size, shape, and color) of individual items to be counted. In other words, the primitive units to be counted must be invariant with variation in form dimensions and other visual features (2, 3, 7, 9-11). Then, the critical question becomes how to define precisely such abstract and invariant attributes. ResultsGeneralizing Connection to a Topological Invariant: Connectivity. We designed arbitrary and irregular shapes of connecting line segments (Fig. 1A, Upper) to test the invariant effect of connection on numerosity judgement independent of the concrete forms or manners of connection (12, 13). Three conditions of connection were constructed: zero, one, and two connected pairs of dots in the test patterns (Fig. 1A). A typical numerosity discrimination task was adopted, in which two visual patterns of dots were briefly presented on opposite sides of fixation (one serving as a reference and the other one serving as a test), and subj...

show abstract

Visual Search

Wolfe

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In visual search tasks, observers typically look for one or more target items among distracting items. Visual search lies at an important intersection between vision and attention. It is impossible to fully process everything in the visual scene at once. Most acts of visual object recognition require that resources be directed to one (or a very few) items. Visual selective attention is used to restrict processing for this purpose. Explaining visual search behavior involves explaining how visual selective attention is deployed to get this done. This chapter reviews why we search, how search experiments have been conducted in the lab, and what the resulting data can (and cannot) tell us. Attention is guided by a limited set of stimulus attributes. The candidates for these attributes are discussed here. The chapter also considers how attention is guided by scene structure and the interaction of attentional mechanisms with long‐term and working memory.

show abstract

Coarse guidance by numerosity in visual search

Cited by 11 publications

References 47 publications

Exploring Mechanisms of Selective Directed Forgetting

Exploring Mechanisms of Selective Directed Forgetting

Topology-defined units in numerosity perception

Visual Search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About