Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:10:03.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Those pernicious items

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Ruth Rosenholtz
Ruth Rosenholtz*
Affiliation:
Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, CSAIL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. rruth@mit.eduhttp://persci.mit.edu/people/rosenholtz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hulleman & Olivers (H&O) identify a number of problems with item-based thinking and its impact on our understanding of visual search. I detail ways in which item-thought is worse than the authors suggest. I concur with the broad strokes of the theory they set out, and also clarify the relationship between their view and our recent theory of visual search.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e154
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, J., Sutter, A. & Ivry, R. (1987) Spatial frequency channels and perceptual grouping in texture segregation. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 37(2):299–325.Google Scholar
Chang, H. & Rosenholtz, R. (2014) New exploration of classic search tasks. Journal of Vision 14(10):933.Google Scholar
Ehinger, K. A. & Rosenholtz, R. (2016) A general account of peripheral encoding also predicts scene perception performance. Journal of Vision 16(2):13.Google Scholar
Graham, N., Beck, J. & Sutter, A. (1992) Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation: Effects of sign and amount of contrast. Vision Research 32(4):719–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, J. A., Bex, P. J. & Dakin, S. C. (2009) Positional averaging explains crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(31):13130–35.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. A., Bex, P. J. & Dakin, S. C. (2012) Crowding follows the binding of relative position and orientation. Journal of Vision 12(3):1–20.Google Scholar
Intriligator, J. & Cavanagh, P. (2001) The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology 43:171–216. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0755.Google Scholar
Keshvari, S. & Rosenholtz, R. (2016) Pooling of continuous features provides a unifying account of crowding. Journal of Vision 16(3):39, 1–15. doi: 10.1167/16.3.39.Google Scholar
Levi, D. M. & Carney, T. (2009) Crowding in peripheral vision: Why bigger is better. Current Biology 19(23):1988–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J. A. & Morgan, M. (2001) Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience 4(7):739–44.Google Scholar
Põder, E. & Wagemans, J. (2007) Crowding with conjunctions of simple features. Journal of Vision 7(2):23. doi: 10.1167/7.2.23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenholtz, R., Huang, J. & Ehinger, K. A. (2012a) Rethinking the role of top-down attention in vision: Effects attributable to a lossy representation in peripheral vision. Frontiers in Psychology 3(13):1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenholtz, R., Huang, J., Raj, A., Balas, B. J. & Ilie, L. (2012b) A summary statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual search. Journal of Vision 12(4):14, 1–17. doi: 10.1167/12.4.14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y. & Nakano, L. (2007) Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision 7(2):17, 1–22. doi: 10.1167/7.2.17.Google Scholar
Rosenholtz, R. & Wijntjes, M. (2014) Peripheral object recognition with informative natural context. Journal of Vision 14(10):214.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, B. S. & Sagi, D. (1996) Preattentive texture segmentation: The role of line terminations, size, and filter wavelength. Perception and Psychophysics 58(4):489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strasburger, H. (2005) Unfocused spatial attention underlies the crowding effect in indirect form vision. Journal of Vision 5(11):1024–37.Google Scholar
van den Berg, R., Johnson, A., Martinez Anton, A., Schepers, A. L. & Cornelissen, F. W. (2012) Comparing crowding in human and ideal observers. Journal of Vision 12(6):13 doi: 10.1167/12.6.13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, J. M., Alvarez, G. A., Rosenholtz, R. E., Kuzmova, Y. I. & Sherman, A. M. (2011a) Visual search for arbitrary objects in real scenes. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 73:1650–71. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0153-3.Google Scholar
Zelinsky, G. J. (2008) A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review 115:787–835. doi: 10.1037/a0013118.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Huang, J., Yigit-Elliott, S. & Rosenholtz, R. (2015) Cube search, revisited. Journal of Vision 15(3):9, 1–18. doi: 10.1167/15.3.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar