Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Eye Movements A Window on Mind and Brain_Van Gompel_2007

Galpin, A. J., & Underwood, G. (2005). Eye movements during search and detection in comparative visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1313–1331.

Hillstrom, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 800–817. Hooge, I. T., & Erkelens, C. J. (1999). Peripheral vision and oculomotor control during visual search. Vision

Research, 39, 1567–1575.

Irwin, D. E., Colcombe, A. M., Kramer, A. F., & Hahn, S. (2000). Attentional and oculomotor capture by onset, luminance and color singletons. Vision Research, 40, 1443–1458.

Kaptein, N. A., Theeuwes, J., & van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1053–1069.

Koch, C., & Ullman, S. (1985). Shifts in selective attention: Towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4, 219–227.

Luria, S. M., & Strauss, M. S. (1975). Eye movements during search for coded and uncoded targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 303–308.

Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22, 657–672.

Motter, B. C., & Belky, E. J. (1998). The guidance of eye movements during active visual search. Vision Research, 38, 1805–1815.

Poisson, M. E., & Wilkinson, F. (1992). Distractor ratio and grouping processes in visual conjunction search.

Perception, 21, 21–38.

Pomplun, M., Reingold, E. M., & Shen, J. (2001). Peripheral and parafoveal cueing and masking effects on saccadic selectivity. Vision Research, 41, 2757–2769.

Pomplun, M., Reingold, E. M., & Shen, J. (2003). Area activation: A computational model of saccadic selectivity in visual search. Cognitive Science, 27, 299–312.

Pomplun, M., Sichelschmidt, L., Wagner, K., Clermont, T., Rickheitb, G., & Ritter, H. (2001). Comparative visual search: a difference that makes a difference. Cognitive Science, 25, 3–36.

Scialfa, C. T., & Joffe, K. (1998). Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1067–1082.

Shen, J., Reingold, E. M., & Pomplun, M. (2000). Distractor ratio influences patterns of eye movements during visual search. Perception, 29, 241–250.

Shen, J., Reingold, E. M., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Guidance of eye movements during conjunctive visual search: The distractor-ratio effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 76–96.

Shen, J., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Williams, D. E. (2003). Saccadic selectivity during visual search: The influence of central processing difficulty. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eyes: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 65–88). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Sobel, K. V., & Cave, K. R. (2002). Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1055–1070.

Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.

Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. Williams, L. G. (1966). The effect of target specification on objects fixated during visual search. Perception &

Psychophysics, 1, 315–318.

Williams, D. E., & Reingold, E. M. (2001). Preattentive guidance of eye movements during triple conjunction search tasks: The effects of feature discriminability and saccadic amplitude. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 476–488.

Williams, D. E., Reingold, E. M., Moscovitch, M., & Behrmann, M. (1997). Patterns of eye movements during parallel and serial visual search tasks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 151–164.

Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.

Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–71). London: Psychology Press.

Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 483–502.

Yantis, S. (1998). Control of visual attention. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 223–256). London: Psychology Press.

Zelinsky, G. J. (1996). Using eye saccades to assess the selectivity of search movements. Vision Research, 36, 2177–2187.

Zelinsky, G. J., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1997). Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 244–262.

Zohary, E., & Hochstein, S. (1989). How serial is serial processing in vision? Perception, 18, 191–200.

This page intentionally left blank

Abstract

Research into scene context effects has claimed that the semantic relationship between a scene and an object can affect initial visual processing. Our research contributes to this debate, considering different scene types and methodologies. Using simple line drawings, complex naturalistic photographs and line drawings derived from them, we investigated the detectability of semantically consistent and inconsistent objects in scenes. We failed to find reliable evidence of a consistency effect on scene processing within a single fixation or on subsequent eye movements prior to target fixation.

Since the pioneering studies of Biederman, Mezzanote, & Rabinowitz, et al. (1982), it has been accepted that a single brief glance at a visual scene provides ‘gist’ information that allows identification of the type of scene being viewed and the spatial layout of the major surfaces (Sanocki, 2003; Schyns & Oliva, 1994). When viewing is prolonged, this gist is supplemented with more detailed information as the eye directs the fovea to successive locations within the scene. An important and unresolved question concerns what information can be extracted from regions that are not foveally fixated. Such information has the potential for supporting the process of supplementation both directly and by contributing to the guidance of the eye scan.

In this chapter we concentrate on the extraction of semantic information from extrafoveal vision. To investigate semantic processing, the semantic relationship between an object and the scene background in which it is located can be manipulated. An object is semantically related to the scene context when its identity is compatible with the scene’s ‘gist’. For example, consider two objects sharing similar visual features, such as an apple and a ball. An apple is semantically compatible, or consistent, with a fruit market context, but a ball in the same location would be inconsistent with the scene’s meaning. By comparing performance on a given task between objects categorised as semantically consistent and inconsistent with the scene, it is possible to determine whether the object’s semantic meaning is affecting the performance measure.

Friedman (1979) recorded eye scans when viewing scenes that might contain inconsistent objects. Objects inconsistent with the scene context elicited significantly longer fixation durations than did consistent objects. Thus semantic inconsistency exerts an immediate effect when an object is viewed foveally. This effect is robust and usually extends to facilitation for inconsistent objects in tasks involving memory and recall, attributable to increased foveal processing (e.g. Pezdek, Whetstone, Reynolds, Askari, & Dougherty, 1989; Lampinen, Copeland, & Neuschatz, 2001). However, the effects of a semantically inconsistent object viewed in extrafoveal vision, prior to direct fixation, are less clear.

Loftus and Mackworth (1978), in the well-known ‘octopus in a farmyard’ study, reported that, as well as being fixated for longer, inconsistent objects in scenes were more likely to be fixated early in the viewing process than their consistent controls, with saccades directed to such objects from over 7 away as early as the second fixation on the scene. These findings suggested that semantic inconsistency can be detected very rapidly from extrafoveal processing, over 7 from fixation. However, these findings have not been reliably replicated in several subsequent studies (e.g. De Graef, Christiaens, & d’Ydewalle, 1990; Henderson, Weeks, & Hollingworth, 1999) and a number of explanations have been offered for this discrepancy in results (Gareze, 2003).

In an alternative approach, brief scene presentations have been used to determine whether semantic inconsistency can be detected rapidly within a single fixation. Biederman et al. (1982) reported a significant consistency advantage. Participants were faster and more accurate in responding that a consistent object (named by an object label at the start of the trial) was presented at a location specified by a probe after the 150 ms scene presentation. However, Hollingworth and Henderson (1998) proposed that their

facilitation for consistent targets could result from response bias. When a replication with adequate controls was implemented, a significant advantage was found for inconsistent objects over consistent objects, a facilitatory effect later replicated (Hollingworth & Henderson, 1999). This inconsistency advantage has also been reported in a change blindness paradigm (Hollingworth & Henderson, 2000) and using an attentional probe paradigm (Gordon, 2004). However, independent researchers have struggled to identify a similar effect when using different experimental stimuli (e.g. Davenport & Potter, 2004) and the process mediating any inconsistent object facilitation remains poorly defined.

The experiments reported here address two concerns that occur with many of the existing studies. The first concern is that the distance between the target object and the participant’s fixation position was not controlled, or was not systematically manipulated. For example, in the recent study of Gordon (2004), objects of mean size around 2 were presented at eccentricities (in one condition) of 2 6 (range 0 8–4 7 ). For the closest eccentricity, the material is effectively foveal, so this study failed to draw a distinction between foveal, parafoveal and extrafoveal target presentations. The second concern is that studies often repeat trials with the same background scene, sometimes with a different critical object in the same location thus introducing a possible confound with implicit memory effects.

To address these issues, we used a paradigm adapted from Hollingworth and Henderson’s work (1998, 1999) in which a brief scene presentation containing a consistent or inconsistent target object was followed by a two-alternative forced-choice display in which the target and a distractor (both consistent or both inconsistent) were presented. Results are presented from this paradigm (Experiments 1–4) and also from a free scene viewing paradigm (Experiment 5) with the same material, comparing eye movements in line drawings and photographs of scenes, containing consistent and inconsistent target objects. By investigating consistency effects during brief scene presentations while manipulating fixation position relative to the target, we aim to determine whether consistency effects occur in foveal, parafoveal or extrafoveal vision. It is possible that consistency might interact with fixation position, accounting for the conflicting data evident in previous studies.

From the free scene viewing task, we can investigate whether semantic inconsistency can be detected immediately upon first fixation on a scene, or whether the effects develop only during scene viewing which allows continued inspection of the image. Henderson and Hollingworth’s (1998) review of eye movements during scene viewing indicated that longer fixation durations were found when viewing colour photos than when viewing black and white line drawings. Our comparison will additionally allow us to investigate whether a similar difference occurs between simple line drawings and complex grey-scale photographs.

1. Experiments 1–4: General method

We present four experiments, which make use of the same design but using different images as experimental stimuli in each case. Our intention was to compare the detectability

This direction was chosen at random with the constraint that all locations had to fit within the dimensions of the image.

With participants fixating the selected point, the scene image was displayed for 120 ms, chosen to prevent any eye movements being executed. A response display was immediately presented which contained two objects, either both semantically consistent or both inconsistent with the scene just presented. One of these objects was always the target and participants were required to make a manual response to indicate which of the two they thought had been presented in the scene. This display remained visible for up to 5000 ms or until a response was recorded, if sooner. An inter-trial interval of 1000 ms followed before the start of the next trial. Practice trials were used to familiarise participants with the procedure. The scene backgrounds used in the practice trials were not used in the experimental trials.

We investigated the effects of scene-target consistency (2 levels: consistent or inconsistent) and fixation location relative to the target (5 levels: 0–4 as above) on response accuracy. Each image could be viewed with any of the five possible fixation positions, which was counterbalanced across participants. As repeated presentations of the same scene backgrounds and response displays might influence responses, each participant viewed only two examples of each scene background, once with a consistent target and once with an inconsistent one. We compared response accuracy in these conditions across different stimuli types in Experiments 1–4; when the images were (1) line drawings drawn from the Leuven library, which will be referred to as simple line drawings, (2) inverted displays of the same set of line drawings, (3) grey-scale photographs of household scenes and (4) line drawings of these photographs (Figure 2).

2. Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, the images used were derived from the Leuven line drawing library. This library consists of a set of line drawing bitmap files of scenes together with similar individual object bitmaps. Objects identified as consistent with a specific scene context could be embedded seamlessly within it so as to occlude the relevant region of scene background.

Inconsistent displays were created by embedding an object consistent with a different scene and manually ensuring appropriate occlusion of the background. As far as possible, object size and location were matched with the consistent object replaced, although the consistency manipulation was the primary consideration. This manipulation was confirmed by a questionnaire study in which naïve participants identified each target object and scene background and rated the likelihood of finding the target in that location.

2.1. Results

Initial analyses showed little evidence of an overall consistency effect (Figure 3a). As expected, accuracy was significantly higher when participants were directed to the precise