Visual Search: Detection, Identification, and Localization

Green, Marc

doi:10.1068/p210765

Cited by 47 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies have investigated whether or not detection, localization, and recognition can be dissociated experimentally in visual search tasks or change detection tasks. Some of these studies found a dissociation of detection, localization, or recognition (Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Gormican, 1988;Dukewich & Klein, 2009;Ghorashi et al, 2010;Busch et al, 2010a;Busch et al, 2010b;Schneider & Wascher, 2013;Chan & Hayward, 2009;Watanabe, 2003;Wolfe et al, 2006;Agostinelli et al, 1986;Becker et al, 2000;Turatto & Bridgeman, 2005;Hughes et al, 2012) while others found them to be similar (Luck & Vogel, 1997;Green, 1992;Joseph et al, 1997;Busey & Palmer, 2008;Zehetleitner & Müller, 2010) or found recognition to be conditional upon localization Donk and Meinecke (2001). Thus, whether target detection in visual search for static patterns can occur in the absence of localization or object recognition is still debated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change detection on a hunch: Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature changes

Ball

Busch

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on change detection and change blindness have investigated the nature of visual representations by testing the conditions under which observers are able to detect when an object in a complex scene changes from one moment to the next. Several authors have proposed that change detection can occur without identification of the changing object, but the perceptual processes underlying this phenomenon are currently unknown. We hypothesized that change detection without localization or identification occurs when the change happens outside the focus of attention. Such changes would usually go entirely unnoticed, unless the change brings about a modification of one of the feature maps representing the scene. Thus, the appearance or disappearance of a unique feature might be registered even in the absence of focused attention and without feature binding, allowing for change detection, but not localization or identification. We tested this hypothesis in three experiments, in which changes either involved colors that were already present elsewhere in the display or entirely unique colors. Observers detected whether any change had occurred and then localized or identified the change. Change detection without localization occurred Moreover, change detection without localization for unique feature changes was independent of the number of objects in the display and independent of change identification. These findings suggest that pre-attentive registration of a change on a feature map can give rise to a conscious experience even when feature binding has failed: that something has changed without knowing what or where. Keywords

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change detection on a hunch: Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature changes

Ball

Busch

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As it did, we must conclude that even if the task does not require the processing of identity information, this information is processed nevertheless. However, we would not go so far as to assume that detection never occurs without some degree of identification, as some authors (Green, 1992;Thomas, 1985) have proposed. Actually, there are many factors that are likely to affect the degree of identification present in detection tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the mere possibility of responding to a lesser amount of, or earlier available, sensory information does not preclude that identity-related information is also computed and, thus, may affect detection performance. So, detection and identification may differ more in degree than in type (e.g., Green, 1992;Thomas, 1985), which renders AEB in detection tasks at least possible.…”

Section: Jochen Musseler and Bernhard Hommel Max Planck Institute Formentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli

Müsseler¹,

Hommel²

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work indicates that action-control processes influence perceptual processes: The identification probability of a left-or right-pointing arrow is reduced when it appears during the execution of a compatible left-right-key press (Mtisseler& Hommel,in press). The present study addresses the question of whether this effect would also be observed in a detection task-that is, with judgments that do not require discriminating between left-and right-pointing arrows. Indeed, we found comparable effects in both the identificationtask and the detection task. This outcome is interpreted within a cornrnoncodingframework, which holds that stimulus processing and action control operate on the same codes.The present article deals with the relationship between perception and action and, in particular, with the effects of compatibility or incompatibility between stimuli and responses. Yet, in contrast to the numerous investigations on the impact of stimulus information on response selection (for overviews, see Hommel &Prinz, 1997, andProctor &Reeve, 1990), our concern is with the reverse direction-that is, with the impact of action on perception, We found empirical evidence for such an impact in a recent study where subjects were presented with a masked left-or right-pointing arrow while executing a prepared left-or right-key press (Musseler & Hommel, in press). Surprisingly, when asked to identify the arrow at leisure afterwards, subjects were consistently better with incompatible relationships between response and arrow (e.g., left response, right-pointing arrow) than with compatible relationships (e.g., left response, left-pointing arrow), Our interpretation ofthis finding rests on the assumption that stimulus processing and action control operate on the same kind of-and sometimes even identicalcodes (cf. the common-coding approach outlined by Prinz, 1992). According to this approach, a left response, for example, would be represented and controlled by the same cognitive LEFT code that is used in coding a left-pointing arrow (Musseler & Prinz, 1996). However, there is reason to assume that executing an action results in a selfinhibition of the action-related codes-hence, a refractory phase (MacKay, 1986). If so, executing a left response should be associated with a temporarily decreased sensitivity to LEFT stimuli, such as left-pointing arrows. The

show abstract

“…This can be accomplished either through a model-based approach, as we have done, or through close matching of tasks such as with the two-bytwo paradigm (M. Green, 1992). One way or the other, one must address the different decision rules required by each task.…”

Section: (Appendix Continues)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task.

Busey¹,

Palmer²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In both behavior and neuroscience research, it is debated whether the processing of identity and location is closely bound throughout processing. One aspect of this debate is the possibly privileged processing of identity or location. For example, processing identity may have unlimited capacity, while processing location does not. The authors have investigated the possibility of such privileged processing by measuring set-size effects for a variety of identification and localization tasks. In particular, set-size effects in accuracy visual search are measured with either 1 or 2 possible targets. For 1-target tasks, set-size effects are smaller for identification than localization; for 2-target tasks, set-size effects are larger for identification than localization. The observed crossover interaction is inconsistent with a privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location. Furthermore, this interaction is predicted by an independent channel model based on signal detection theory, in which the details of each decision determine the relative magnitude of the set-size effects. This result is consistent with the similar processing of identity and location, and it refutes the privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location.

show abstract

Visual Search: Detection, Identification, and Localization

Cited by 47 publications

References 35 publications

Change detection on a hunch: Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature changes

Change detection on a hunch: Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature changes

Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli

Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About