The role of presentation method and depth singletons in visual search for objects moving in depth

Abstract

Are objects moving in depth searched for efficiently? Previous studies have reported conflicting results, with some finding efficient search for only approaching motion (Franconeri & Simons, 2003), and others reporting that both approaching and receding motion are found more efficiently than static targets (Skarratt, Cole, & Gellatly, 2009). This may be due to presentation protocol differences and a confounding variable. We systematically tested the effect of the motion-in-depth presentation method and the effect of a confounding unique depth singleton on search performance. Simulating motion in depth using size scaling, changing binocular disparity, or a calibrated combination of these two depth cues, we found that search performance was affected by presentation method and that a combination of size scaling and changing disparity gives rise to the most compelling motion-in-depth perception. Exploiting this finding in Experiment 2, we found that removing the depth singleton does not affect motion-in-depth search performance. Overall, we found that search is more efficient for targets moving in depth than static targets. Approaching and receding motion had an equal advantage over static targets in target selection, shown through shallower search slopes. However, approaching motion had lower intercepts, consistent with an advantage over receding motion in later stages of processing associated with target identification and response.

Orienting of visuo‐spatial attention in complex 3D space: Search and detection

“…Here, together with the fully significant effect of target-position, the right LOC also showed a marginal effect of "bmC > mC" (not significant after correction for multiple comparisons but observed both in the main and the control analyses; see Table IV) indicating a possible contribution of binocular signals also in the detection phase of the trial. The latter would be consistent with previous studies showing that targets including binocular disparity can facilitate visual search, over monocular cues only [Finlayson, et al, 2012].…”

Fast and Forceful: Modulation of Response Activation Induced by Shifts of Perceived Depth in Virtual 3D Space

“…Even though there are some results that do not confirm this observation (e.g., Theeuwes et al, 1998; Dent et al, 2012; Finlayson et al, 2012) there is a growing amount of reports revealing that targets presented closer to an observer result in faster RT (e.g., Shulman et al, 1979; Downing and Pinker, 1985; Gawryszewski et al, 1987; Chen et al, 2012; Finlayson and Grove, 2015; Plewan and Rinkenauer, 2016; Wang et al, 2016). However, comparisons of different studies on 3D perception are particularly difficult as those studies employ distinct techniques to induce depth impression.…”

Feature-location binding in 3D: Feature judgments are biased by 2D location but not position-in-depth

“…However, we cannot rule out an alternative interpretation that the congruency bias seen in Experiment 1 was due to combined depth and disparity information, and that binocular depth but not monocular depth biases the perception of object features. Binocular disparity is arguably one of the stronger and more realistic cues for depth perception (Finlayson, Remington, & Grove, 2012; McKee & Taylor, 2010), and Finlayson et al (2012) demonstrated that there is variation in the perception of motion in depth depending on the cues used to simulate depth. That said, in both Experiments 1 and 2 we found RT priming effects for depth, as expected based on previous 3D attention literature (Atchley et al, 1997; Downing & Pinker, 1985), indicating that participants perceived and were sensitive to depth information in both cases.…”