Advertisement

pp 1-21 | Cite as

Feature Distribution Learning (FDL): A New Method for Studying Visual Ensembles Perception with Priming of Attention Shifts

  • Andrey Chetverikov
  • Sabrina Hansmann-Roth
  • Ömer Dağlar Tanrıkulu
  • Árni Kristjánsson
Protocol
Part of the Neuromethods book series

Abstract

We discuss how priming of attention shifts has in recent studies proved to be a useful method for studying internal representations of visual ensembles. Attentional priming is very powerful in particular when role reversals between targets and distractors occur. Such role reversals can be used to assess how expected or unexpected a particular target is. This new method for studying representations of visual ensembles has revealed that observer’s representations are far more detailed than previous studies of ensemble perception have suggested where the emphasis has been on summary statistics, i.e., mean and variance. Observers can represent surprisingly complex distribution shapes such as whether a representation is bimodal or not. We discuss the details of how this feature distribution learning (FDL) method has been used to assess internal representations of visual ensembles. We also speculate that the method can prove to be an important implicit way of assessing how observers represent regularities in their environments.

Keywords

Perceptual representations Visual ensembles Visual search Priming Feature distribution learning (FDL) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

SHR, ODT, and AK were supported by grant IRF #173947-052 from the Icelandic Research Fund and by a grant from the Research Fund of the University of Iceland. AC was supported by a Radboud Excellence Fellowship.

References

  1. 1.
    Maljkovic V, Nakayama K (1994) Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Mem Cognit 22:657–672Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bravo MJ, Nakayama K (1992) The role of attention in different visual-search tasks. Percept Psychophys 51:465–472Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pascucci D, Mastropasqua T, Turatto M (2012) Permeability of priming of pop out to expectations. J Vis 12:21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shurygina O, Kristjansson Á, Tudge L et al (2019) Expectations and perceptual priming in a visual search task: evidence from eye movements and behavior. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 45(4):489–499.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000618
  5. 5.
    Sigurdardottir HM, Kristjánsson Á, Driver J (2008) Repetition streaks increase perceptual sensitivity in visual search of brief displays. Vis Cogn 16(5):643–658.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280701218364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kristjánsson Á, Ásgeirsson ÁG (2019) Attentional priming: recent insights and current controversies. Curr Opin Psychol 29:71–75Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang D, Kristjánsson Á, Nakayama K (2005) Efficient visual search without top-down or bottom-up guidance. Percept Psychophys 67:239–253Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamy DF, Antebi C, Aviani N et al (2008) Priming of Pop-out provides reliable measures of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention. Vision Res 48:30–41Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saevarsson S, Jóelsdóttir S, Hjaltason H et al (2008) Repetition of distractor sets improves visual search performance in hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychologia 46:1161–1169Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kristjánsson Á, Driver J (2008) Priming in visual search: separating the effects of target repetition, distractor repetition and role-reversal. Vision Res 48:1217–1232Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chetverikov A, Kristjánsson Á (2015) History effects in visual search for monsters: search times, choice biases, and liking. Atten Percept Psychophys 77:402–412Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ásgeirsson ÁG, Kristjánsson Á, Bundesen C (2014) Independent priming of location and color in identification of briefly presented letters. Atten Percept Psychophys 76:40–48Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillstrom AP (2000) Repetition effects in visual search. Percept Psychophys 62:800–817Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kristjánsson Á, Wang D, Nakayama K (2002) The role of priming in conjunctive visual search. Cognition 85:37–52Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kristjánsson Á, Ingvarsdóttir Á, Teitsdóttir UD (2008) Object- and feature-based priming in visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 15:378–384Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang L, Holcombe AO, Pashler H (2004) Repetition priming in visual search: episodic retrieval, not feature priming. Mem Cognit 32:12–20Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kristjánsson Á (2006) Simultaneous priming along multiple feature dimensions in a visual search task. Vision Res 46:2554–2570Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belopolsky AV, Schreij D, Theeuwes J (2010) What is top-down about contingent capture? Atten Percept Psychophys 72:326–341Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Theeuwes J, van der BE (2011) On the limits of top-down control of visual selection. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:2092–2103Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Folk CL, Remington RW, Johnston JC (1992) Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:1030–1044Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlisle NB, Kristjánsson Á (2017) How visual working memory contents influence priming of visual attention. Psychol Res 82:833–839Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kristjánsson Á, Saevarsson S, Driver J (2013) The boundary conditions of priming of visual search: from passive viewing through task-relevant working memory load. Psychon Bull Rev 20:514–521Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muller HJ, Reimann B, Krummenacher J (2003) Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: stimulus- and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:1021–1035Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Found A, Müller HJ (1996) Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Percept Psychophys 58:88–101Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becker SI (2010) The role of target-distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. J Exp Psychol Gen 139:247–265Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kristjánsson Á, Campana G (2010) Where perception meets memory: a review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys 72:5–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martini P (2010) System identification in Priming of Pop-Out. Vision Res 50:2110–2115Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brascamp JW, Pels E, Kristjánsson Á (2011) Priming of pop-out on multiple time scales during visual search. Vision Res 51:1972–1978Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kruijne W, Brascamp JW, Kristjánsson Á et al (2015) Can a single short-term mechanism account for priming of pop-out? Vision Res 115:17–22Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kruijne W, Meeter M (2015) The long and the short of priming in visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys 77:1558–1573Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McPeek RM, Maljkovic V, Nakayama K (1999) Saccades require focal attention and are facilitated by a short-term memory system. Vision Res 39:1555–1566Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maljkovic V, Martini P (2005) Implicit short-term memory and event frequency effects in visual search. Vis Res 45(21):2831–2846.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.05.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Theeuwes J, Reimann B, Mortier K (2006) Visual search for featural singletons: no top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming. Vis Cogn 14:466–489Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Folk CL, Remington RW (2008) Bottom-up priming of top-down attentional control settings. Vis Cogn 16:215–231Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolfe JM, Butcher SJ, Lee C et al (2003) Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:483–502Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2016) Building ensemble representations: How the shape of preceding distractor distributions affects visual search. Cognition 153:196–210Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Girshick AR, Landy MS, Simoncelli EP (2011) Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nat Neurosci 14:926–932Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rao RP, Olshausen BA, Lewicki MS (2002) Probabilistic models of the brain: perception and neural function. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pouget A, Beck JM, Ma WJ et al (2013) Probabilistic brains: knowns and unknowns. Nat Neurosci 16:1170–1178Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ma WJ (2012) Organizing probabilistic models of perception. Trends Cogn Sci 16:511–518Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fiser J, Berkes P, Orbán G et al (2010) Statistically optimal perception and learning: from behavior to neural representations. Trends Cogn Sci 14(3):119–130Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Feldman J (2014) Probabilistic models of perceptual features. In: Wagemans J (ed) Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 933–947Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vincent BT (2015) A tutorial on Bayesian models of perception. J Math Psychol 66:103–114Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Whitney D, Yamanashi-Leib A (2018) Ensemble perception. Annu Rev Psychol 69:105–129Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kuriki I (2004) Testing the possibility of average-color perception from multi-colored patterns. Opt Rev 11(4):249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10043-004-0249-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ma WJ, Navalpakkam V, Beck JM et al (2011) Behavior and neural basis of near-optimal visual search. Nat Neurosci 14:783–790Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ma WJ, Shen S, Dziugaite G et al (2015) Requiem for the max rule. Vision Res 116:179–193Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2017) Rapid learning of visual ensembles. J Vis 17:1–15Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2017) Set size manipulations reveal the boundary conditions of distractor distribution learning. Vision Res 140:144–156Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Utochkin IS, Tiurina NA (2014) Parallel averaging of size is possible but range-limited: a reply to Marchant, Simons, and De Fockert. Acta Psychol (Amst) 146:7–18Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2017) Representing Color Ensembles. Psychol Sci 28:1–8Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2018) Probabilistic rejection templates in visual working memory. Submitted for Review. doi:  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vrbgh. Preprint available at https://psyarxiv.com/vrbgh/
  53. 53.
    Hansmann-Roth S, Chetverikov A, Kristjánsson Á (2019) Representing color and orientation ensembles: can observers learn multiple feature distributions? Submitted for ReviewGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Duncan J, Humphreys GW (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev 96:433–458Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Palmer EM, Horowitz TS, Torralba A et al (2011) What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:58–71Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kristjánsson Á, Jóhannesson ÓI (2014) How priming in visual search affects response time distributions: analyses with ex-Gaussian fits. Atten Percept Psychophys 76:2199–2211Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Luce RD (1986) Response times: their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Muggeo VMR (2003) Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat Med 22:3055–3071Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Muggeo VMR (2008) Segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 8:20–25Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Davies RB (1987) Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika 74:33–43Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2018) Probabilistic perceptual landscapes. J Vis 18:529Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Atchley P, Andersen GJ (1995) Discrimination of speed distributions: sensitivity to statistical properties. Vision Res 35:3131–3144Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Morgan MJ, Chubb C, Solomon JA (2008) A “dipper” function for texture discrimination based on orientation variance. J Vis 8:9–9Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Im HY, Chong SC (2014) Mean size as a unit of visual working memory. Perception 43:663–676Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chong SC, Treisman A (2003) Representation of statistical properties. Vision Res 43:393–404Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Webster J, Kay P, Webster MA (2014) Perceiving the average hue of color arrays. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 31:A283–A292Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Attarha M, Moore CM (2015) The capacity limitations of orientation summary statistics. Atten Percept Psychophys 77:1116–1131Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Norman LJ, Heywood CA, Kentridge RW (2015) Direct encoding of orientation variance in the visual system. J Vis 15:1–14Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Michael E, de Gardelle V, Summerfield C (2014) Priming by the variability of visual information. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:7873–7878Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Corbett JE, Melcher D (2014) Stable statistical representations facilitate visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40:1915–1925Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Meyniel F, Sigman M, Mainen ZF (2015) Confidence as Bayesian probability: from neural origins to behavior. Neuron 88:78–92Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Solomon JA (2010) Visual discrimination of orientation statistics in crowded and uncrowded arrays. J Vis 10:19Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lau JS, Brady TF (2018) Ensemble statistics accessed through proxies: range heuristic and dependence on low-level properties in variability discrimination. J Vis 18:3Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chetverikov A, Campana G, Kristjánsson Á (2017) Learning features in a complex and changing environment: a distribution-based framework for visual attention and vision in general. Prog Brain Res 236:97–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.07.001
  75. 75.
    Hansmann-Roth S, Kristjansson Á, Whitney D et al (2018) Explicit and implicit judgments of distribution characteristics: Do they lead to different results? Oral presentation at European Conference on Visual Perception 2018, Trieste, Italy. Abstract available at https://guidebook.com/guide/123359/poi/10443998/
  76. 76.
    Treisman AM, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Won BY, Geng JJ (2018) Learned suppression for multiple distractors in visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 44:1128–1141Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Geng JJ, Witkowski P (2019) Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency. Curr Opin Psychol 29:119–125Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hout MC, Goldinger SD (2014) Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys 77:128–149Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ma WJ, Husain M, Bays PM (2014) Changing concepts of working memory. Nat Neurosci 17:347–356Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bays PM (2015) Spikes not slots: noise in neural populations limits working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 19:431–438Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrey Chetverikov
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sabrina Hansmann-Roth
    • 3
  • Ömer Dağlar Tanrıkulu
    • 3
  • Árni Kristjánsson
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and BehaviorRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Cognitive Research LabRussian Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationMoscowRussia
  3. 3.School of Health SciencesUniversity of IcelandReykjavíkIceland
  4. 4.School of PsychologyNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations