Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images

Rousselet, Guillaume A.; Fabre‐Thorpe, Michèle; Thorpe, Simon J.

doi:10.1038/nn866

Cited by 277 publications

(231 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

201

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…So detection rates of 80% (when no people were present) could be taken to suggest full attention-free processing, consistent with claims by Rousselet et al (2002) and by Li et al (2002). To counter this argument, we wish to make the point that high detection rates need not imply full identification and binding.…”

Section: Single-target Experiments (1-3)mentioning

confidence: 71%

Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?

Evans

Treisman

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

230

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have suggested attention-free semantic processing of natural scenes in which concurrent tasks leave category detection unimpaired (e.g., F. Li, R. VanRullen, C. Koch, & P. Perona, 2002). Could this ability reflect detection of disjunctive feature sets rather than high-level binding? Participants detected an animal target in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) sequence and then reported its identity and location. They frequently failed to identify or to localize targets that they had correctly detected, suggesting that detection was based only on partial processing. Detection of targets was considerably worse in sequences that also contained humans, presumably because of shared features. When 2 targets were presented in RSVP, a prolonged attentional blink appeared that was almost eliminated when both targets were detected without being identified. The results suggest rapid feature analysis mediating detection, followed by attention-demanding binding for identification and localization.

show abstract

Section: Single-target Experiments (1-3)mentioning

confidence: 71%

Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?

Evans

Treisman

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

230

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that object recognition is a rapid process. For example, it takes humans and monkeys a few hundred milliseconds to detect an animal in a natural scene [4,26,30]. In our current study, the representational paintings were cluttered scenes that included landscapes, still life, and religious images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Behavioral and electrophysiological studies in humans and monkeys have suggested that object recognition is a rapid process that can be achieved within a few hundred milliseconds [4,26,30]. Moreover, it has been shown that identification of objects within natural scenes is facilitated when the context is meaningful [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art

Ishai

Fairhall

Pepperell

2007

Brain Research Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indeterminate art, in which familiar objects are only suggestive, invokes a perceptual conundrum as apparently detailed and vivid images resist identification. We hypothesized that compared with paintings that depict meaningful content, object recognition in indeterminate images would be delayed, and tested whether aesthetic affect depends on meaningful content. Subjects performed object recognition and judgment of aesthetic affect tasks. Response latencies were significantly longer for indeterminate images and subjects perceived recognizable objects in 24% of these paintings. Although the aesthetic affect rating of all paintings was similar, judgement latencies for the indeterminate paintings were significantly longer. A surprise memory test revealed that more representational than indeterminate paintings were remembered and that affective strength increased the probability of subsequent recall. Our results suggest that perception and memory of art depend on semantic aspects, whereas, aesthetic affect depends on formal visual features. The longer latencies associated with indeterminate paintings reflect the underlying cognitive processes that mediate object resolution. Indeterminate art works therefore comprise a rich set of stimuli with which the neural correlates of visual perception can be investigated.

show abstract

“…Yet, recent studies in visual categorization lend some support to the existence of early (i.e., preattentive) feature binding processes (e.g., Li, VanRullen, Koch, & Perona, 2002;Rousselet, Fabre-Thorpe, & Thorpe, 2002). In these studies, observers determined whether a natural scene contained an instance of a target category (e.g., animal).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conjunctive feature similarity effect for visual search

Takeda

Phillips

Kumada

2007

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional models of visual search assume interitem similarity effects arise from within each feature dimension independently of other dimensions. In the present study, we examine whether distractordistractor effects also depend on feature conjunctions (i.e., whether feature conjunctions form a separate "feature" dimension that influences interitem similarity). Spatial frequency and orientation feature dimensions were used to generate distractors. In the bound condition, the number of distractors sharing the same conjunction of features was higher than that in the unbound condition, but the sharing of features within frequency and orientation dimensions was the same across conditions. The results showed that the target was found more efficiently in the bound than in the unbound condition, indicating that distractor -distractor similarity is also influenced by conjunctive representations.Since the early 1980s, the nature of attention in visual search has been extensively investigated by a large number of researchers. It is generally accepted that search efficiency is affected by two types of similarity: target -distractor similarity and distractor -distractor similarity. Wolfe, Cave, and Franzel (1989) demonstrated that a target could be found more efficiently when the target shared only one feature with distractors than when two features were shared in a triple conjunction search task. This is the effect of the target -distractor similarity. On the other hand, the effect of the distractordistractor similarity was reported by Duncan and Humphreys (1989). In their study, observers were required to look for a T among Ls. They found that search performance improved when distractors were displayed with the same orientation compared to when they were rotated randomly. In summary, search efficiency increased with decreasing target -distractor similarity and with increasing distractor -distractor similarity.Guided search model (GSM) is a prominent model of visual search, which can explain both the effects of target -distractor similarity and distractor -distractor similarity on search efficiency (Cave & Wolfe, 1990;Wolfe, 1994;Wolfe et al., 1989). GSM assumed that the visual input is decomposed through several feature dimensions, such as colour, orientation, or motion, and that target -distractor and distractor -distractor similarity are calculated in each feature dimension separately. An activation map, which guides PQJE206220

show abstract

Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images

Cited by 277 publications

References 14 publications

Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?

Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?

Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art

A conjunctive feature similarity effect for visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About