Abstract
In this report, we explored the features that support visual search for broadly inclusive natural categories. We used a paradigm in which subjects searched for a randomly selected target from one category (e.g., one of 32 line drawings of artifacts or animals in displays ranging from three to nine items) among a mixed set of distractors from the other. We found that search was surprisingly fast. Target-present slopes for animal targets among artifacts ranged from 10.8 to 16.0 msec/item, and slopes for artifact targets ranged from 5.5 to 6.2 msec/item. Experiments 2–5 tested factors that affect both the speed of the search and the search asymmetry favoring detection of artifacts among animals. They converge on the conclusion that target-distractor differences in global contour shape (e.g., rectilinearity/curvilinearity) and visual typicality of parts and form facilitate search by category. We argue that existing theories are helpful in understanding these findings but that they need to be supplemented to account for the specific features that specify categories and to account for subjects’ ability to quickly locate targets representing heterogeneous and formally complex categories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bertenthal, B. I. (1993). Infants’ perception of biomechanical motions: Intrinsic image and knowledge based constraints. In C. Granrud (Ed.),Visual perception and cognition in infancy (pp. 175–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biederman, I., Blickle, T. W., Teitelbaum, R. C., &Klatsky, G. J. (1988). Object search in nonscene displays.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 456–467.
Caramazza, A., &Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 1–34.
Carey, S. (1985).Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chun, M. M., &Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?Cognitive Psychology,30, 39–78.
Donnelly, D., Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch M. J. (1991). Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 561–570.
Duncan, J. (1983). Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 221–232.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Egeth, H., Jonides, J., &Wall, S. (1972). Parallel processing in multi-element displays.Cognitive Psychology,3, 674–698.
Enns, J., &Rensink, R. A. (1991). Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings.Psychological Review,98, 101–118.
Farah, M. J. (1995). Dissociable systems for recognition: A cognitive neuropsychology approach. In S.M. Kosslyn & D.N. Osherson (Eds.),Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 101–120). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farah, M. J., McMullen, P. A., &Meyer, M.M. (1991). Can recognition of living things be selectively impaired?Neuropsychologia,29, 185–193.
Funnell, E., &Sheridan, J. (1992). Categories of knowledge? Unfamiliar aspects of living and nonliving things.Cognitive Neuropsychology,9, 135–153.
Gaffan, D., &Heywood, C. A. (1993). A spurious category-specific visual agnosia for living things in normal human and nonhuman primates.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5, 118–128.
Gilbert, C. D. (1993). Circuitry, architecture, and functional dynamics of visual cortex.Cerebral Cortex,3, 373–386.
Gutheil, G., Vera, A., &Keil, F. C. (1998). Do houseflies think? Patterns of induction and biological beliefs in development.Cognition,66, 33–49.
He, Z. J., &Nakayama, K. (1992). Surface versus features in visual search.Nature,359, 231–233.
Intraub, H. (1981). Rapid conceptual identification of sequentially presented pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 604–610.
Jain, R., Kasturi, R., &Schunck, B. G. (1995).Machine vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jonides, J., &Gleitman, H. (1972). A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 457–460.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keil, F. C. (1994). Explanation, association, and the acquisition of word meaning.Lingua,92, 169–196.
Kosslyn, S. M., Hamilton, S. E., &Bernstein, J. H. (1995). The perception of curvature can be selectively disrupted in prosopagnosia.Brain & Cognition,27, 36–58.
Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 558–564.
Kurbat, M. A. (1997). Can the recognition of living things really be selectively impaired?Neuropsychologia,35, 813–827.
Mack, A., &Rock, I. (1998).Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mandler, J. M., &McDonough, L. (1993). Concept formation in infancy.Cognitive Development,8, 291–318.
Martin, A., Haxby, J., Lalonde, F. M., Wiggs, C. L.,&Ungerleider, L. G. (1995). Discrete cortical regions associated with knowledge of color and knowledge of action.Science,270, 102–105.
Martin, A., Wiggs, C. L., Ungerleider, L. G., &Haxby, J. V. (1996). Neural correlates of category-specif ic knowledge.Nature,379, 649–652.
Massey, C. M., &Gelman, R. (1988). Preschoolers’ ability to decide whether a photographed unfamiliar object can move itself.Developmental Psychology,24, 307–317.
Mauri, A., Daum, I., Sartori, G., Riesch, G., &Birbaumer, N. (1994). Category-specific semantic impairment in Alzheimer’s disease and temporal lobe dysfunction: A comparative study.Journal of Clinical & Experimental Psychology,16, 689–701.
Nakayama, K., &Joseph, J. (1997). Attention, pattern recognition, and popout in visual search. In R. Parasuraman (Ed.),The attentive brain (pp. 279–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Neisser, U. (1963). Decision-time without reaction-time: Experiments in visual scanning.American Journal of Psychology,76, 376–385.
Nickerson, R. S. (1968). A note on long-term recognition memory for pictorial material.Psychonomic Science,11, 58.
Olshausen, B. A., &Field, D. J. (1996). Relations between the “association field” and the statistics of natural scenes [Abstract].Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,37, 2370.
Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Language & Memory,2, 509–522.
Potter, M. C., &Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words.Nature,253, 437–438.
Ramachandran, V. S. (1988, Month). Perceiving shape from shading.Scientific American,259, 76–83.
Rensink, R. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes.Visual Cognition,7, 17–42.
Rosengren, K. S., Gelman, S. A., Kalish, C. W., &McCormick, M. (1991). As time goes by: Children’s early understanding of growth in animals.Child Development,62, 1302–1320.
Sacchett, C., &Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: A category-specific deficit for artifactual objects and body parts.Cognitive Neuropsychology,9, 73–86.
Sanocki, T., Bowyer, K., Heath, M., & Sarkar, S. (1996, May).Are edges sufficient for object recognition? Paper presented at the Object Perception and Memory Conference, Chicago.
Sartori, G., &Job, R. (1988). The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychological study on the interaction of visual and semantic information.Cognitive Neuropsychology,5, 105–132.
Sartori, G., Job, R., &Colheart, M. (1992). The organization of object knowledge: Evidence from neuropsychology. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.),Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 451–465). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,6, 156–163.
Sheridan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1993). A verbal-semantic categoryspecific recognition impairment.Cognitive Neuropsychology,10, 143–184.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Standing, L., Conezio, J., &Haber, R. N. (1970). Perception and memory for pictures: Single-trial learning of 2500 visual stimuli.Psychonomic Science,19, 73–74.
Stewart, F., Parkin, A. J., &Hunkin, N. M. (1992). Naming impairments following recovery from herpes simplex encephalitis: Categoryspecific?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 261–284.
Suzuki, S., &Cavanagh, P. (1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object-inferiority effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 901–913.
Theeuwes, J. (1993). Visual selective attention: A theoretical analysis.Acta Psychologica,83, 93–154.
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., &Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system.Nature,381, 520–522.
Tranel, D., Logan, C. G., Frank, R. J., &Damasio, A. R. (1997). Explaining category-related effects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: Operationalization and analysis of factors.Neuropsychologia,35, 1329–1339.
Treisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Treisman, A., &Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Review,95, 15–48.
Van de Walle, G. A., &Hoerger, M. (1996). The perceptual foundations of categorization in infancy [Abstract].Infant Behavior & Development,19, 794.
Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 683–703.
Warrington, E. K., &Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments.Brain,107, 829–854.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Visual search in continuous naturalistic stimuli.Vision Research,34, 1187–1195.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998a). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.),Attention (pp. 13–73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998b). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?Psychological Science,9, 33–39.
Wolfe, J. M., &Bennett, S. C. (1997). Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features.Vision Research,37, 25–43.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., &Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 419–433.
Wolfe, J. M., Yee, A., &Friedman-Hill, S. R. (1992). Curvature is a basic feature for visual search tasks.Perception,21, 465–480.
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach.Cognition,69, 1–34.
Zelinsky, G. J., Rao, R. P. N., Hayhoe, M. M., &Ballard, D. H. (1997). Eye movements reveal the spatiotemporal dynamics of visual search.Psychological Science,8, 448–453.
Zusne, L. (1975). Curved contours and the associative response.Perceptual & Motor Skills,40, 203–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The first three experiments in this paper were included as part of D.T.L.’s doctoral dissertation submitted to Cornell University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levin, D.T., Takarae, Y., Miner, A.G. et al. Efficient visual search by category: Specifying the features that mark the difference between artifacts and animals in preattentive vision. Perception & Psychophysics 63, 676–697 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194429
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194429