Volume 35 #2

Contents

1. Neurophysiological support of motor control in “Hybrid” positions. Literature review
2. Functional investigations of the primary auditory cortex in the cat
3. Analysis of individual strategies in categorical visual search
4. Effect of auditory LTP-like stimulation on the processing of sounds
5. Gradient algorithm for raindrop detection on a sequence of images
6. Local path finding in autonomous car state lattice based on multi-criteria optimization

Recent research in the field of visual perception and, in particular, extrafoveal analysis, states that perception works similarly in most people. Therefore, studies in the field focus mainly on average measurements of search speed and efficiency. At the same time, the results of other studies show pronounced individual differences even when performing tasks involving low-level processes. Within this work, we performed an experiment on a sample of 29 people, whose task was to find the target pyramid among three distractors, thus performing the task of categorical search. The results were evaluated both on average, globally for the sample, and separately for each subject. The data analysis revealed that individual strategies, as well as their dynamics throughout the experiment, varied significantly among different participants: the degree of the extrafoveal analysis involvement varied from practically imperceptible in some subjects to extremely pronounced in others. The dynamics of this type of analysis involvement had individual features as well. The findings of the study underline the importance of considering individual strategies in categorical visual search studies.

Key words: individual differences, visual search, categorical search, extrafoveal perception, perceptive strategies

DOI: 10.31857/S0235009221020050

References:

• Dreneva A.A., Krichevets A.N., Chumachenko D.V., Shvarts A.U. Ekstrafoveal’nyj analiz kategorial’no zadannyh trekhmernyh figure [Extrafoveal analysis of categorically defined stereometric shapes]. Sibirskij psihologicheskij zhurnal [Siberian journal of psychology]. 2019. № 72. P. 68–92 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/72/4
• Krichevets A.N., Shvarts A.U., Chumachenko D.V., Dreneva A.A. Vozmozhnosti ekstrafoveal’nogo vospriyatiya geometricheskih figure [The possibilities of extrafoveal perception of geometric shapes]. Voprosy psihologii [The issues of psychology]. 2017. № 6. P. 117–128 (in Russian).
• Bukach C.M., Phillips W.S., Gauthier I. Limits of generalization between categories and implications for theories of category specificity. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 2010. T. 72. № 7. C. 1865–1874. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1865
• Chen X., Zelinsky G.J. Real-world visual search is dominated by top-down guidance. Vision Research. 2006. T. 46. № 24. C. 4118–4133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.008
• Cimminella F., Della Sala S., Coco M.I. Extra-foveal Processing of Object Semantics Guides Early Overt Attention During Visual Search. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 2020. C. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01955-6
• Frömer R., Dimigen O., Niefind F., Krause N., Kliegl R., Sommer W. Are individual differences in reading speed related to extrafoveal visual acuity and crowding? PLoS One. 2015. T. 10. № 3. C. e0121986. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121986
• Gandini D., Lemaire P., Dufau S. Older and younger adults’ strategies in approximate quantification. Acta Psychologica. 2008. T. 129. № 1. C. 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.009
• McGugin R.W., Van Gulick A.E., Tamber-Rosenau B.J., Ross D.A., Gauthier I. Expertise effects in face-selective areas are robust to clutter and diverted attention, but not to competition. Cerebral Cortex. 2015. T. 25. № 9. C. 2610–2622. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu060
• McGugin R.W., Newton A.T., Gore J.C., Gauthier I. Robust expertise effects in right FFA. Neuropsychologia. 2014. T. 63. C. 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.029
• Peelen M.V., Kastner S. A neural basis for real-world visual search in human occipitotemporal cortex. Proc.Nat. Acad. Sci. 2011. T. 108. № 29. C. 12125–12130. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101042108
• Reeder R.R. Individual differences shape the content of visual representations. Vision Research. 2017. T. 141. C. 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.08.008
• Rosenholtz R., Huang J., Ehinger K.A. Rethinking the role of top-down attention in vision: Effects attributable to a lossy representation in peripheral vision. Frontiers in psychology. 2012. T. 3. C. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00013
• Schmidt J., Zelinsky G.J. Short article: Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue. Quarterly J. Exp. Psychol. 2009. T. 62. № 10. C. 1904–1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902853530
• Strasburger H., Rentschler I., Jüttner M. Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: A review. J. Vision. 2011. T. 11. № 5. C. 13–13. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.13
• Vickery T.J., King L.W., Jiang Y. Setting up the target template in visual search. J. Vision. 2005. T. 5. № 1. C. 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/5.1.8
• Wang R., Li J., Fang H., Tian M., Liu J. Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science. 2012. T. 23. № 2. C. 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420575
• Wolfe J.M., Horowitz T.S. Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017. T. 1. № 3. C. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058
• Yang H., Zelinsky G.J. Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets. Vision Research. 2009. T. 49. № 16. C. 2095–2103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.017
• Zelinsky G.J., Adeli H., Peng Y., Samaras D. Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013. T. 368. № 1628. C. 20130058. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0058