Rethinking Space: A Review of Perception, Attention, and Memory in Scene Processing

Literature Cited

1. Andersen GJ, Ni R, Bian Z, Kang J 2011. Limits of spatial attention in three-dimensional space and dual-task driving performance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43:1381–90
   [Google Scholar]
2. Baldassano C, Beck DDM, Fei-Fei L 2013. Differential connectivity within the parahippocampal place area. NeuroImage 75:228–37
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bar M. 2004. Visual objects in context. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5:8617–29
   [Google Scholar]
4. Biederman I. 1987. Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev. 94:2115–47
   [Google Scholar]
5. Biederman I, Gerhardstein PC. 1993. Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19:1162–82
   [Google Scholar]
6. Biederman I, Gerhardstein PC. 1995. Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: reply to Tarr and Bülthoff 1995. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21:61506–14
   [Google Scholar]
7. Biederman I, Glass AL, Stacy EW 1973. Searching for objects in real-world scenes. J. Exp. Psychol. 97:122–27
   [Google Scholar]
8. Biederman I, Mezzanotte RJ, Rabinowitz JC 1982. Scene perception: detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cogn. Psychol. 14:2143–77
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bonner MF, Epstein RA. 2017. Coding of navigational affordances in the human visual system. PNAS 114:184793–98
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bonner MF, Epstein RA. 2018. Computational mechanisms underlying cortical responses to the affordance properties of visual scenes. PLOS Comput. Biol. 14:4e1006111
    [Google Scholar]
11. Boyce SJ, Pollatsek A, Rayner K 1989. Effect of background information on object identification. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 15:3556–66
    [Google Scholar]
12. Brockmole JR, Castelhano MS, Henderson JM 2006. Contextual cueing in naturalistic scenes: global and local contexts. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32:4699–706
    [Google Scholar]
13. Brooks DI, Rasmussen IP, Hollingworth A 2010. The nesting of search contexts within natural scenes: evidence from contextual cuing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36:61406–18
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bülthoff I, Bülthoff HH. 2003. Image-based recognition of biological motion, scenes, and objects. Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes MA Peterson, G Rhodes 146–72 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
15. Burgess N, Spiers HJ, Paleologou E 2004. Orientational manoeuvres in the dark: dissociating allocentric and egocentric influences on spatial memory. Cognition 94:2149–66
    [Google Scholar]
16. Cain MS, Vul E, Clark K, Mitroff SR 2012. A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search. Psychol. Sci. 23:91047–54
    [Google Scholar]
17. Castelhano MS, Fernandes S, Theriault J 2019. Examining the hierarchical nature of scene representations in memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 45:91619–33
    [Google Scholar]
18. Castelhano MS, Heaven C. 2010. The relative contribution of scene context and target features to visual search in scenes. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72:51283–97
    [Google Scholar]
19. Castelhano MS, Heaven C. 2011. Scene context influences without scene gist: eye movements guided by spatial associations in visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18:5890–96
    [Google Scholar]
20. Castelhano MS, Henderson JM. 2005. Incidental visual memory for objects in scenes. Vis. Cogn. 12:61017–40
    [Google Scholar]
21. Castelhano MS, Henderson JM. 2007. Initial scene representations facilitate eye movement guidance in visual search. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 33:4753–63
    [Google Scholar]
22. Castelhano MS, Henderson JM. 2008. The influence of color on the perception of scene gist. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 34:3660–75
    [Google Scholar]
23. Castelhano MS, Pereira EJ. 2018. The influence of scene context on parafoveal processing of objects. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71:1229–40
    [Google Scholar]
24. Castelhano MS, Pollatsek A. 2010. Extrapolating spatial layout in scene representations. Mem. Cogn. 38:81018–25
    [Google Scholar]
25. Castelhano MS, Pollatsek A, Rayner K 2009. Integration of multiple views of scenes. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71:3490–502
    [Google Scholar]
26. Castelhano MS, Witherspoon RL. 2016. How you use it matters: object function guides attention during visual search in scenes. Psychol. Sci. 27:5606–21
    [Google Scholar]
27. Christou CG, Bülthoff HH. 1999. View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Mem. Cogn. 27:6996–1007
    [Google Scholar]
28. Chun MM. 2000. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4:5170–78
    [Google Scholar]
29. Collegio AJ, Nah JC, Scotti PS, Shomstein S 2019. Attention scales according to inferred real-world object size. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3:140–47
    [Google Scholar]
30. Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM 2011. When objects are close to me: affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18:2302–8
    [Google Scholar]
31. Cutting JE, Vishton PM. 1995. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: the integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. Handbook of Perception and Cognition W Epstein, SJ Rogers 69–117 Cambridge, MA: Academic. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
32. Davenport JL, Potter MC. 2004. Scene consistency in object and background perception. Psychol. Sci. 15:8559–64
    [Google Scholar]
33. De Graef P, Christiaens D, D'Ydewalle G 1990. Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification. Psychol. Res. 52:4317–29
    [Google Scholar]
34. De Graef P, De Troy A, D'Ydewalle G 1992. Local and global contextual constraints on the identification of objects in scenes. Can. J. Psychol. Rev. Can. Psychol. 46:3489–508
    [Google Scholar]
35. de la Rosa S, Moraglia G, Schneider BA 2008. The magnitude of binocular disparity modulates search time for targets defined by a conjunction of depth and colour. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. Rev. Can. Psychol. Exp. 62:3150–55
    [Google Scholar]
36. Denison RN, Yuval-Greenberg S, Carrasco M 2019. Directing voluntary temporal attention increases fixational stability. J. Neurosci. 39:2353–63
    [Google Scholar]
37. Downing CJ, Pinker S. 1985. The spatial structure of visual attention. Attention and Performance, Vol. XI: Mechanisms of Attention and Visual Search MI Posner, OSM Martin 171–87 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
38. Draschkow D, Võ ML-H. 2017. Scene grammar shapes the way we interact with objects, strengthens memories, and speeds search. Sci. Rep. 7:116471
    [Google Scholar]
39. Eckstein MP, Drescher BA, Shimozaki SS 2006. Attentional cues in real scenes, saccadic targeting, and Bayesian priors. Psychol. Sci. 17:11973–80
    [Google Scholar]
40. Edelman S. 1999. Representation and Recognition in Vision Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
41. Egly R, Rafal R, Driver J, Starrveveld Y 1994. Covert orienting in the split brain reveals hemispheric specialization for object-based attention. Psychol. Sci. 5:6380–83
    [Google Scholar]
42. Epstein RA, Baker CI. 2019. Scene perception in the human brain. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 5:373–97
    [Google Scholar]
43. Epstein RA, Harris A, Stanley D, Kanwisher N 1999. The parahippocampal place area: recognition, navigation, or encoding. Neuron 23:1115–25
    [Google Scholar]
44. Epstein RA, Higgins JS, Jablonski K, Feiler AM 2007. Visual scene processing in familiar and unfamiliar environments. J. Neurophysiol. 97:53670–83
    [Google Scholar]
45. Epstein RA, Kanwisher N. 1998. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 392:6676598–601
    [Google Scholar]
46. Fernandes S, Castelhano MS. 2019. The Foreground Bias: Initial Scene Representations Across the Depth Plane PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/S32WZ
    [Crossref]
47. Fernández A, Denison RN, Carrasco M 2019. Temporal attention improves perception similarly at foveal and parafoveal locations. J. Vis. 19:112
    [Google Scholar]
48. Ferrara K, Park S. 2016. Neural representation of scene boundaries. Neuropsychologia 89:180–90
    [Google Scholar]
49. Finlayson NJ, Grove PM. 2015. Visual search is influenced by 3D spatial layout. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 77:72322–30
    [Google Scholar]
50. Foulsham T, Underwood G. 2007. How does the purpose of inspection influence the potency of visual salience in scene perception. Perception 36:81123–38
    [Google Scholar]
51. Freyd JJ. 1987. Dynamic mental representations. Psychol. Rev. 94:4427–38
    [Google Scholar]
52. Friedman A. 1979. Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 108:3316–55
    [Google Scholar]
53. Friedman A, Waller D. 2008. View combination in scene recognition. Mem. Cogn. 36:3467–78
    [Google Scholar]
54. Gaspar JG, Ward N, Neider MB, Crowell J, Carbonari R et al. 2016. Measuring the useful field of view during simulated driving with gaze-contingent displays. Hum. Factors 58:4630–41
    [Google Scholar]
55. Gaspelin N, Luck SJ. 2019. Inhibition as a potential resolution to the attentional capture debate. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 29:12–18
    [Google Scholar]
56. Gauthier I, Tarr MJ. 2016. Visual object recognition: Do we (finally) know more now than we did. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 2:377–96
    [Google Scholar]
57. de Gonzaga Gawryszewski L, Riggio L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltá C 1987. Movements of attention in the three spatial dimensions and the meaning of “neutral” cues. Neuropsychologia 25:119–29
    [Google Scholar]
58. Gibson J. 1950. The Perception of the Visual World Boston: Houghton Mifflin
59. Gibson JJ. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Boston: Houghton Mifflin
60. Greene MR. 2013. Statistics of high-level scene context. Front. Psychol. 4:777
    [Google Scholar]
61. Greene MR, Baldassano C, Esteva A, Beck DM, Fei-Fei L 2016. Visual scenes are categorized by function. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:182–94
    [Google Scholar]
62. Greene MR, Oliva A. 2009a. The briefest of glances: the time course of natural scene understanding. Psychol. Sci. 20:4464–72
    [Google Scholar]
63. Greene MR, Oliva A. 2009b. Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cogn. Psychol. 58:2137–76
    [Google Scholar]
64. Greene MR, Oliva A. 2010. High-level aftereffects to global scene properties. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36:61430–42
    [Google Scholar]
65. Gronau N, Shachar M. 2015. Contextual consistency facilitates long-term memory of perceptual detail in barely seen images. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 41:41095–111
    [Google Scholar]
66. Güçlü U, van Gerven MAJ 2015. Deep neural networks reveal a gradient in the complexity of neural representations across the ventral stream. J. Neurosci. 35:2710005–14
    [Google Scholar]
67. Hassabis D, Maguire EA. 2007. Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:7299–306
    [Google Scholar]
68. Hayhoe MM, Matthis JS. 2018. Control of gaze in natural environments: effects of rewards and costs, uncertainty and memory in target selection. Interface Focus 8:420180009
    [Google Scholar]
69. He C, Peelen MV, Han Z, Lin N, Caramazza A, Bi Y 2013. Selectivity for large nonmanipulable objects in scene-selective visual cortex does not require visual experience. NeuroImage 79:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
70. Henderson JM, Larson CL, Zhu DC 2008. Full scenes produce more activation than close-up scenes and scene-diagnostic objects in parahippocampal and retrosplenial cortex: an fMRI study. Brain Cogn 66:140–49
    [Google Scholar]
71. Henderson JM, Weeks PAJ, Hollingworth A 1999. The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 25:1210–28
    [Google Scholar]
72. Henderson JM, Zhu DC, Larson CL 2011. Functions of parahippocampal place area and retrosplenial cortex in real-world scene analysis: an fMRI study. Vis. Cogn. 19:7910–27
    [Google Scholar]
73. Hillstrom AP, Segabinazi JD, Godwin HJ, Liversedge SP, Benson V 2017. Cat and mouse search: the influence of scene and object analysis on eye movements when targets change locations during search. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 372:171420160106
    [Google Scholar]
74. Hirtle SC, Jonides J. 1985. Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Mem. Cogn. 13:3208–17
    [Google Scholar]
75. Hollingworth A. 2005. Memory for object position in natural scenes. Vis. Cogn. 12:61003–16
    [Google Scholar]
76. Hollingworth A. 2006. Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32:158–69
    [Google Scholar]
77. Hollingworth A, Henderson JM. 1999. Object identification is isolated from scene semantic constraint: evidence from object type and token discrimination. Acta Psychol 102:2–3319–43
    [Google Scholar]
78. Hollingworth A, Rasmussen IP. 2010. Binding objects to locations: the relationship between object files and visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36:3543–64
    [Google Scholar]
79. Intraub H. 2010. Rethinking scene perception: a multisource model. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 52:231–64
    [Google Scholar]
80. Intraub H, Richardson M. 1989. Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15:2179–87
    [Google Scholar]
81. Josephs EL, Konkle T. 2019. Perceptual dissociations among views of objects, scenes, and reachable spaces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 45:6715–28
    [Google Scholar]
82. Joubert OR, Rousselet GA, Fize D, Fabre-Thorpe M 2007. Processing scene context: fast categorization and object interference. Vis. Res. 47:263286–97
    [Google Scholar]
83. Kaakinen JK, Hyönä J, Viljanen M 2011. Influence of a psychological perspective on scene viewing and memory for scenes. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64:71372–87
    [Google Scholar]
84. Kahneman D, Treisman A, Gibbs BJ 1992. The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cogn. Psychol. 24:2175–219
    [Google Scholar]
85. Kaiser D, Cichy RM. 2018. Typical visual-field locations facilitate access to awareness for everyday objects. Cognition 180:118–22
    [Google Scholar]
86. Kaiser D, Quek GL, Cichy RM, Peelen MV 2019. Object vision in a structured world. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23:8672–85
    [Google Scholar]
87. Kaiser D, Stein T, Peelen MV 2014. Object grouping based on real-world regularities facilitates perception by reducing competitive interactions in visual cortex. PNAS 111:3011217–22
    [Google Scholar]
88. Kamps FS, Lall V, Dilks DD 2016. The occipital place area represents first-person perspective motion information through scenes. Cortex 83:17–26
    [Google Scholar]
89. Karklin Y, Lewicki MS. 2005. A hierarchical Bayesian model for learning nonlinear statistical regularities in nonstationary natural signals. Neural Comput 17:2397–423
    [Google Scholar]
90. Karklin Y, Lewicki MS. 2009. Emergence of complex cell properties by learning to generalize in natural scenes. Nature 457:722583–86
    [Google Scholar]
91. Katti H, Peelen MV, Arun SP 2016. Deep neural networks can be improved using human-derived contextual expectations. arXiv:1611.07218 [cs.CV]
    [Google Scholar]
92. Kit D, Katz L, Sullivan B, Snyder K, Ballard D, Hayhoe M 2014. Eye movements, visual search and scene memory, in an immersive virtual environment. PLOS ONE 9:4e94362
    [Google Scholar]
93. Konkle T, Olivia A. 2007. Normative representation of objects: evidence for an ecological bias in object perception and memory. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Vol 29407–12 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Kravitz DJ, Peng CS, Baker CI 2011. Real-world scene representations in high-level visual cortex: It's the spaces more than the places. J. Neurosci. 31:207322–33
    [Google Scholar]
95. Land MF, Hayhoe M. 2001. In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities. Vis. Res. 41:25–263559–65
    [Google Scholar]
96. Lea G. 1975. Chronometric analysis of the method of loci. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1:295–104
    [Google Scholar]
97. Li C-L, Aivar MP, Tong MH, Hayhoe MM 2018. Memory shapes visual search strategies in large-scale environments. Sci. Rep. 8:14324
    [Google Scholar]
98. Loftus GR, Mackworth NH. 1978. Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 4:4565–72
    [Google Scholar]
99. Mack SC, Eckstein MP. 2011. Object co-occurrence serves as a contextual cue to guide and facilitate visual search in a natural viewing environment. J. Vis. 11:99
    [Google Scholar]
100. Mackworth NH, Morandi AJ. 1967. The gaze selects informative details within pictures. Percept. Psychophys. 2:11547–52
     [Google Scholar]
101. Maguire EA, Nannery R, Spiers HJ 2006. Navigation around London by a taxi driver with bilateral hippocampal lesions. Brain 129:112894–907
     [Google Scholar]
102. Malcolm GL, Henderson JM. 2010. Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. J. Vis. 10:24
     [Google Scholar]
103. Malcolm GL, Shomstein S. 2015. Object-based attention in real-world scenes. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144:2257–63
     [Google Scholar]
104. Man L, Krzys K, Castelhano M 2019. The foreground bias: differing impacts across depth on visual search in scenes. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/W6J4A
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
105. Mandler JM, Johnson NS. 1976. Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 2:5529–40
     [Google Scholar]
106. Mandler JM, Ritchey GH. 1977. Long-term memory for pictures. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 3:4386–96
     [Google Scholar]
107. Marr D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information New York: Freeman
108. Marr D, Nishihara HK. 1978. Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 200:1140269–94
     [Google Scholar]
109. Marr D, Poggio BT. 1979. A computational theory of human stereo vision. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 204:1156301–28
     [Google Scholar]
110. Marrara MT, Moore CM. 2000. Role of perceptual organization while attending in depth. Percept. Psychophys. 62:4786–99
     [Google Scholar]
111. Martinez-Conde S, Macknik SL, Martinez LM, Alonso J-M, Tse PU et al. 2006. Top-down facilitation of visual object recognition: object-based and context-based contributions. Prog. Brain Res. 155:3–21
     [Google Scholar]
112. McNamara TP. 1986. Mental representations of spatial relations. Cogn. Psychol. 18:187–121
     [Google Scholar]
113. McNamara TP, Hardy JK, Hirtle SC 1989. Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15:2211–27
     [Google Scholar]
114. Mullally SL, Maguire EA. 2011. A new role for the parahippocampal cortex in representing space. J. Neurosci. 31:207441–49
     [Google Scholar]
115. Mullally SL, Maguire EA. 2013. Exploring the role of space-defining objects in constructing and maintaining imagined scenes. Brain Cogn 82:1100–7
     [Google Scholar]
116. Munneke J, Brentari V, Peelen MV 2013. The influence of scene context on object recognition is independent of attentional focus. Front. Psychol. 4:552
     [Google Scholar]
117. Murray SO, Kersten D, Olshausen BA, Schrater P, Woods DL 2002. Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex. PNAS 99:2315164–69
     [Google Scholar]
118. Nagata S. 1993. How to reinforce perception of depth in single two-dimensional pictures. Pictorial Communication in Virtual and Real Environments SR Ellis 527–45 Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis
     [Google Scholar]
119. Neider MB, Zelinsky GJ. 2006. Scene context guides eye movements during visual search. Vis. Res. 46:5614–21
     [Google Scholar]
120. Oliva A. 2005. Gist of the scene. Neurobiology of Attention L Itti, G Rees, JK Tsotsos 251–56 Cambridge, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
121. Oliva A, Park S, Konkle T 2010. Representing, perceiving, and remembering the shape of visual space. Vision in 3D Environments LR Harris, MRM Jenkin 308–40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
122. Oliva A, Torralba A. 2001. Modeling the shape of the scene: a holistic representation of the spatial envelope. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 42:3145–75
     [Google Scholar]
123. Oliva A, Torralba A. 2007. The role of context in object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:12520–27
     [Google Scholar]
124. Palmer SE. 1975. The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Mem. Cogn. 3:5519–26
     [Google Scholar]
125. Park J, Park S. 2018. Coding of navigational distance in the visual scene-selective cortex. J. Vis. 18:10739
     [Google Scholar]
126. Park S, Intraub H, Yi D-J, Widders D, Chun MM 2007. Beyond the edges of a view: boundary extension in human scene-selective visual cortex. Neuron 54:2335–42
     [Google Scholar]
127. Park S, Konkle T, Oliva A 2014. Parametric coding of the size and clutter of natural scenes in the human brain. Cereb. Cortex 25:71792–805
     [Google Scholar]
128. Pereira EJ, Castelhano MS. 2014. Peripheral guidance in scenes: the interaction of scene context and object content. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 40:52056–72
     [Google Scholar]
129. Pereira EJ, Castelhano MS. 2019. Attentional capture is contingent on scene region: using surface guidance framework to explore attentional mechanisms during search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26:1273–81
     [Google Scholar]
130. Pezdek K, Whetstone T, Reynolds K, Askari N, Dougherty T 1989. Memory for real-world scenes: the role of consistency with schema expectation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15:4587–95
     [Google Scholar]
131. Posner MI. 1980. Orienting of attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 32:13–25
     [Google Scholar]
132. Previc FH. 1998. The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychol. Bull. 124:2123–64
     [Google Scholar]
133. Roediger HL. 1980. The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 6:5558–67
     [Google Scholar]
134. Rogé J, Pébayle T, Lambilliotte E, Spitzenstetter F, Giselbrecht D, Muzet A 2004. Influence of age, speed and duration of monotonous driving task in traffic on the driver's useful visual field. Vis. Res. 44:232737–44
     [Google Scholar]
135. Rosenholtz R. 2016. Capabilities and limitations of peripheral vision. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 2:437–57
     [Google Scholar]
136. Rosenholtz R, Li Y, Nakano L 2007. Measuring visual clutter. J. Vis. 7:217
     [Google Scholar]
137. Schulman AI. 1973. Recognition memory and the recall of spatial location. Mem. Cogn. 1:3256–60
     [Google Scholar]
138. Song J, Bennett P, Sekuler A, Sun H-J 2017. Effect of apparent depth in peripheral target detection in driving under focused and divided attention. J. Vis. 17:10388
     [Google Scholar]
139. Stein T, Peelen MV. 2017. Object detection in natural scenes: independent effects of spatial and category-based attention. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 79:3738–52
     [Google Scholar]
140. Summerfield JJ, Lepsien J, Gitelman DR, Mesulam MM, Nobre AC 2006. Orienting attention based on long-term memory experience. Neuron 49:6905–16
     [Google Scholar]
141. Tarr MJ, Pinker S. 1989. Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cogn. Psychol. 21:2233–82
     [Google Scholar]
142. Tatler BW, Land MF. 2011. Vision and the representation of the surroundings in spatial memory. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366:1564596–610
     [Google Scholar]
143. Torralba A, Oliva A, Castelhano MS, Henderson JM 2006. Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. Psychol. Rev. 113:4766–86
     [Google Scholar]
144. Treisman A, Kahneman D. 1984. Changing views of attention and automaticity. Varieties of Attention R Parasuraman, DR Davies 29–61 Cambridge, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
145. Ullman S. 1989. Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition. Cognition 32:3193–254
     [Google Scholar]
146. Vatterott DB, Vecera SP. 2015. The attentional window configures to object and surface boundaries. Vis. Cogn. 23:5561–76
     [Google Scholar]
147. Võ ML-H, Boettcher SE, Draschkow D 2019. Reading scenes: how scene grammar guides attention and aids perception in real-world environments. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 29:205–10
     [Google Scholar]
148. Võ ML-H, Henderson JM. 2009. Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. J. Vis. 9:324
     [Google Scholar]
149. Võ ML-H, Henderson JM. 2011. Object-scene inconsistencies do not capture gaze: evidence from the flash-preview moving-window paradigm. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73:61742–53
     [Google Scholar]
150. Waller D, Friedman A, Hodgson E, Greenauer N 2009. Learning scenes from multiple views: Novel views can be recognized more efficiently than learned views. Mem. Cogn. 37:190–99
     [Google Scholar]
151. Wang B, Theeuwes J. 2018. How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 80:4860–70
     [Google Scholar]
152. Williams CC, Castelhano MS. 2019. The changing landscape: high-level influences on eye movement guidance in scenes. Vision 3:333
     [Google Scholar]
153. Wolbers T, Klatzky RL, Loomis JM, Wutte MG, Giudice NA 2011. Modality-independent coding of spatial layout in the human brain. Curr. Biol. 21:11984–89
     [Google Scholar]
154. Wolfe JM. 2013. When is it time to move to the next raspberry bush? Foraging rules in human visual search. J. Vis. 13:310
     [Google Scholar]
155. Wolfe JM, Võ ML, Evans KK, Greene MR 2011. Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15:277–84
     [Google Scholar]
156. Wu C-C, Wick FA, Pomplun M 2014. Guidance of visual attention by semantic information in real-world scenes. Front. Psychol. 5:54
     [Google Scholar]
157. Zelinsky GJ, Loschky LC. 2005. Eye movements serialize memory for objects in scenes. Percept. Psychophys. 67:4676–90
     [Google Scholar]