Computation of mean size is based on perceived size

Im, Hee Yeon; Chong, Sang Chul

doi:10.3758/app.71.2.375

Cited by 38 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, using tasks that required working memory consolidation, we found that the participants were more efficient in performing the distributed than the focused attention task even when faced with larger memory arrays, which is consistent with previous reports (Ariely, 2001;Chong et al, 2008;Chong & Treisman, 2005a;Im & Chong, 2009). This strengthens the claim that distributed attention is associated with relatively lower capacity limits than focused attention (Treisman, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…For example, the processing advantage found in statistical property estimation tasks Chong & Treisman, 2003, 2005a, 2005b can be attributed to faster consolidation of information processed with distributed attention. In support of this finding, previous studies have indicated that statistical information is extracted from sufficiently early visual representations of objects (Im & Chong, 2009). Therefore, the rate obtained with the distributed attention task might be the upper limit for consolidation time in working memory.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…The process of extracting statistical information (average size or orientation) and gist appears to be quick, effortless, parallel, and early in the course of the visual processing stream (Chong, Joo, Emmanouil, & Treisman, 2008;Chong & Treisman, 2003, 2005aIm & Chong, 2009). However, many aspects of the averaging process guided by distributing attention over multiple objects are not clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consolidation of statistical information of multiple objects in working memory

Baijal

Srinivasan

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated working memory consolidation in focused and distributed attention tasks by examining the time course of the consolidation process (Experiment 1) and its dependence on capacity-limited central resources (Experiment 2) in both tasks. In a match-to-sample design using masks at various intervals to vary consolidation rates, the participants performed either an identification task (focused attention) or a mean estimation task (distributed attention) with (Experiment 1) or without (Experiment 2) prior knowledge of what task they were to perform. We found that consolidation in the distributed attention task was more efficient and was about twice as fast as in the focused attention task. In addition, both tasks suffered interference when they had to be performed together, indicating that both types of attention rely on a common set of control processes. These findings can be attributed to differences in the resolution of object representations and in the scope of attention associated with focused and distributed attention.Keywords Attention . Consolidation . Selection . Statistical judgment . Working memory Active encoding of relevant information into working memory is susceptible to attentional constraints. In other words, there are limitations in the process of active encoding of perceptual representations into durable working memory representations, a process also termed consolidation (Chun & Potter, 1995;Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998;Vogel, Luck, & Shapiro, 1998). For example, research on the attentional blink is consistent with the suggestion that consolidation in working memory is capacity limited. Similarly, our ability to select and track randomly moving objects is also limited (Cavanagh & Alvarez, 2005). It has been suggested that attention is the capacity-limited process that restricts processing in working memory (Cowan, 1998(Cowan, , 2001). However, it is not yet clear how differences in the scope or the type of attention affect consolidation of information in working memory.Previous studies on the temporal dynamics of consolidation in working memory with tasks that involved focused attention have reported that it takes about 500 ms to form the working memory representation of a single item (Chun & Potter, 1995;Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998;Ward, Duncan, & Shapiro, 1996). This duration increases with increases in the number of consolidated items (Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998;Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2006). Jolicoeur and Dell'Acqua (1998) used a dual-task paradigm that combined a verbal working memory task with an auditory speeded-response task. The observers were first visually presented with a memory array of alphanumeric characters (Target 1 [T1]), and this was followed by a low-or high-pitched tone (Target 2 [T2]). The observers made a speeded response to T2, after which memory for T1 was tested. Jolicoeur and Dell'Acqua found that responses to T1 were slow when the delay between T1 and T2 was short (350-500 ms). However, the responses became progressively faster as th...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consolidation of statistical information of multiple objects in working memory

Baijal

Srinivasan

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This summary representation or statistic has been called an "ensemble feature." For example, laboratory experiments suggest that humans can represent with little effort the mean size (Ariely, 2001;Chong & Treisman, 2003;Im & Chong, 2009), general direction of motion (Watamaniuk & Duchon, 1992), general location or "centroid" (Alvarez & Oliva, 2008), and approximate number of items in a group (Halberda, Sires, & Feigenson, 2006), as well as the average emotion of faces in a crowd (Haberman & Whitney, 2009, 2010.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of sampling and internal noise on the representation of ensemble average size

Halberda

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing numbers of studies have explored human observers' ability to rapidly extract statistical descriptions from collections of similar items (e.g., the average size and orientation of a group of tilted Gabor patches). Determining whether these descriptions are generated by mechanisms that are independent from object-based sampling procedures requires that we investigate how internal noise, external noise, and sampling affect subjects' performance. Here we systematically manipulated the external variability of ensembles and used variance summation modeling to estimate both the internal noise and the number of samples that affected the representation of ensemble average size. The results suggest that humans sample many more than one or two items from an array when forming an estimate of the average size, and that the internal noise that affects ensemble processing is lower than the noise that affects the processing of single objects. These results are discussed in light of other recent modeling efforts and suggest that ensemble processing of average size relies on a mechanism that is distinct from segmenting individual items. This ensemble process may be more similar to texture processing.

show abstract

“…Because the averaging process seems to be quick, effortless, and parallel, researchers have raised the possibility that summary representations are calculated in the early course of perceptual processing (Chong & Treisman, 2003, 2005a, 2005bChong, Joo, Emmanouil, & Treisman, 2008;Im & Chong, 2009). However, some aspects of this link are not yet clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objects with reduced visibility still contribute to size averaging

Choo

Franconeri

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People can rapidly judge the average size of a collection of objects with considerable accuracy. In this study, we tested whether this size-averaging process relies on relatively early object representations or on later object representations that have undergone iterative processing. We asked participants to judge the average size of a set of circles and, in some conditions, presented two additional circles that were either smaller or larger than the average. The additional circles were surrounded by four-dot masks that either lingered longer than the circle array, preventing further processing with object substitution masking (OSM), or disappeared simultaneously with the circle array, allowing the circle representation to reach later visual processing stages. Surprisingly, estimation of average circle size was modulated by both visible circles and circles whose visibility was impaired by OSM. There was also no correlation across participants between the influence of the masked circles and susceptibility to OSM. These findings suggest that relatively early representations of objects can contribute to the size-averaging process despite their reduced visibility.

show abstract

Computation of mean size is based on perceived size

Cited by 38 publications

References 35 publications

Consolidation of statistical information of multiple objects in working memory

Consolidation of statistical information of multiple objects in working memory

The effects of sampling and internal noise on the representation of ensemble average size

Objects with reduced visibility still contribute to size averaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About