Gist in time: Scene semantics and structure enhance recall of searched objects

Abstract

Previous work has shown that recall of objects that are incidentally encountered as targets in visual search is better than recall of objects that have been intentionally memorized (Draschkow, Wolfe & Võ, 2014). However, this counter-intuitive result is not seen when these tasks are performed with non-scene stimuli. The goal of the current paper is to determine what features of search in a scene contribute to higher recall rates when compared to a memorization task. In each of four experiments, we compare the free recall rate for target objects following a search to the rate following a memorization task. Across the experiments, the stimuli include progressively more scene-related information. Experiment 1 provides the spatial relations between objects. Experiment 2 adds relative size and depth of objects. Experiments 3 and 4 include scene layout and semantic information. We find that search leads to better recall than explicit memorization in cases where scene layout and semantic information are present, as long as the participant has ample time (2500ms) to integrate this information with knowledge about the target object (Exp. 4). These results suggest that the integration of scene and target information not only leads to more efficient search, but can also contribute to stronger memory representations than intentional memorization.

The lower bounds of massive memory: Investigating memory for object details after incidental encoding

“…On the one hand, although sensitivity measures were low, this study demonstrates above chance memory performance even for objects that were seen for less than a second among over a thousand other objects, suggesting that some object details are indeed reliably encoded and utilised. On the other hand, when participants search for objects (i.e., more natural task) embedded in meaningful scenes (i.e., more natural stimuli), there actually seems to be the reverse trend—incidentally generated memories are more reliable than ones established after explicit memorization (Draschkow, Wolfe, & Võ, 2014; Josephs, Draschkow, Wolfe, & Võ, 2016). Furthermore, in this study, the presented objects can be seen as distractors to the task of identifying distortions, whereas in previous studies each object was task relevant (e.g., Brady et al, 2008; Cunningham et al, 2015).…”

The Changing Landscape: High-Level Influences on Eye Movement Guidance in Scenes

“…One would assume that having previously fixated an object in a scene would make it easier to find that object later, but that advantage may be limited [78,129]. Võ and Wolfe [119] had participants repeatedly search the same scene for different targets, while their eyes were tracked.…”

Anchoring visual search in scenes: Assessing the role of anchor objects on eye movements during visual search

“…''Scene grammar'' refers to the regularities that are common to our surroundings (Draschkow & Võ, 2017;Võ & Wolfe, 2013a, 2015. When scene grammar is disrupted, processes such as object recognition (Biederman et al, 1982;Davenport & Potter, 2004), visual search (Cornelissen & Võ, 2016;Võ & Henderson, 2009;Võ & Wolfe, 2013b), memorization (Draschkow, Wolfe, & Võ, 2014;Josephs, Draschkow, Wolfe, & Võ, 2016), and scene construction (Draschkow & Võ, 2017) are less efficient.…”