Human Information Processing of Targets and Real-World Scenes.

Biederman, Irving

doi:10.21236/ada172002

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be somewhat inappropriate to term this result a pop-out effect in that all the advantage for inconsistent targets was confined to the target-absent trials. We have found this result—a modest overall advantage for inconsistent targets completely attributable to target absent trials—in four prior experiments (Biederman, 1981, 1982; Biederman, Teitelbaum, Klatsky, et al, 1979) with differing stimulus sets and instructional conditions in these nonscene displays.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Object search in nonscene displays.

Biederman

Blickle²,

Teitelbaum³

et al. 1988

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When we look at a chair or a giraffe we cannot suppress a semantic interpretation of that image, although we need not name it (e.g., Smith & McGee, 1980). Given that classification of object images is mandatory, is it capacity free? Subjects attempted to detect the presence or absence of a target object, specified by basic-level name, in a 100-ms display of a nonscene (clock face) arrangement of one to six pictures of common objects. There was a sharp monotonic decrease in detectability as a function of the number of objects in the display, indicating that object detection under these conditions is an attention-demanding process. No benefit was observed for targets that were likely to co-occur with the distractors. This latter result is evidence against an account of the perceptual interference found for improbable objects in real-world scenes, which holds that the interference derives from an inventory listing of the objects without regard to their spatial relations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%