Abstract
An information tradeoff is an increased processing or utilization of information from one stimulus source at the expense of processing or utilization of information from a different source. An experiment was conducted to determine whether information tradeoffs occurred when subjects attended selectively to one of two different structural levels of naturalistic scenes. The subjects’ attentional focus was directed to either the global or local structure of a scene (i.e., the scene or an object in the scene, respectively) either before or after presentation of a scene. They then had to use the information obtained from a 100-msec exposure of the scene to choose between two forced-choice alternatives that described one of the levels. The nature of the alternatives was such that both alternatives adequately characterized one of the structural levels on the basis of physical and semantic relations within the scene. Results showed that the subjects were significantly slower and less accurate when their attentional focus and the forced-choice alternatives were at different levels of stimulus structure than when they were at the same level, providingevidence of an information tradeoffwhen different types of information from a scene were used. When processinginformation from a particular structural level, information fromtheother level either was less available or was not used efficiently. Furthermore, the information tradeoffs were more severe in the precue than in the postcue condition, indicating differences in the efficiency of the selectivity process. The results are interpreted with respect to the role of selective attention in processing complex stimuli such as naturalistic scenes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banks, W. P., &Prinzmetal, W. (1976). Configurational effects in visual information processing.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 361–367.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
Biederman, I. (1981). On the semantics of a glance at a scene. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 213–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biederman, I., Glass, A. L., &Stacy, E. W. (1973). Searching for objects in real-world scenes.Journal of Experimental Psychology,97, 22–27.
Biederman, I., Rabinowitz, J. C., Glass, A. L., &Stacy, E. W. (1974). Onthe information extracted from a glance at a scene.Journal of Experimental Psychology,104, 597–600.
Biederman, I., Teitelbaum, R. C., &Mezzanotte, R. J. (1983). Scene perception: A failure to find a benefit from prior expectancy or familiarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 411–429.
Breitmeyer, B. G., &Ganz, L. (1976). Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing.Psychological Review,83, 1–36.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958).Perception and communication. London: Oxford University Press.
Carr, T. H., &Bacharach, V. R. (1976). Perceptual tuning andconscious attention: Systems of input regulation in visual information processing.Cognition,4, 281–302.
Downing, C. J. (1988). Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 188–202.
Egeth, H. E. (1967). Selective attention.Psychological Bulletin,67, 41–57.
Egeth, H. E., &Smith, E. E. (1967). Perceptual selectivity in a visual recognition task.Journal of Experimental Psychology,74, 543–549.
Eriksen, C. W., &St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception & Psychophysics,40, 225–240.
Eriksen, C. W., &Yeh, Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 583–597.
Haber, R. N. (1966). The nature of the effect of set on perception.Psychological Review,73, 335–350.
Haber, R. N., &Hershenson, M. (1980).The psychology of visual perception (2nd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Harris, C. S., &Haber, R. N. (1963). Selective attention and coding in visual perception.Journal of Experimetual Psychology,65, 328–333.
Hoffman, J. E. (1980). Interaction between global and local levels of a form.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 222–234.
Intraub, H. (1980). Presentation rate and the representation of briefly glimpsed pictures in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 1–12.
Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kinchla, R. A. (1977). The role of structural redundancy in the perception of visual targets.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 19–30.
Kinchla, R. A. (1980). The measurement of attention. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.),Attention and performance VIII (pp. 213–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kinchla, R. A., Solls-Macias, V., &Hoffman, J. E. (1983). Attending to different levels of structure in a visual image.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 1–10.
Kinchla, R. A., &Wolfe, J. M. (1979). The order of visual processing: “Top-down”, “bottom-up”, or “middle-out”.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 225–231.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1973). Scanning visual images: Some structural implications.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 90–94.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1975). Information representation in visual images.Cognitive Psychology,7, 341–370.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., &Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 47–60.
Laberge, D., &Tweedy, J. R. (1964). Presentation probability and choice time.Journal of Experimental Psychology,68, 477–481.
Lovrus, O. R., &Bell, S. M. (1975). Two types of information in picture memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,1, 103–113.
Lorrus, O. R., Nelson, W. W., &Kallman, H. J. (1983). Differential acquisition rates for different types of information from pictures.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 187–198.
Mandler, J. M., &Johnson, N. S. (1976). Some of the thousand words a picture is worth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 529–540.
Mandler, J. M., &Parker, R. E. (1976). Memory for descriptive and spatial information in complex pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 38–48.
Martin, M. (1979). Local and global processing: The role of sparsity.Memory & Cognition,7, 476–484.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology,9, 353–383.
Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence.Psychological Research,43, 1–32.
Pachella, R. G. (1975). The effect of set onthe tachistoscopic recognition of pictures. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.),Attention and performance V (pp. 136–156). New York: Academic Press.
Palmer, S. F. (1975). Visual perception and world knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In D. A. Norman, D. F. Rumelhart, & the LNR Research Group (Eds.),Explorations in cognition (pp. 279–301). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., &Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. I. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.),Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Potter, M. C. (1975). Meaning in visual search.Science,187, 965–966.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulnessof stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 275–280.
Sperling, G., &Melchner, M. J. (1978a). The attention operating characteristic: Examples from visual search.Science,202, 315–318.
Sperling, G., &Melchner, M. J. (1978b). Visual search, visual attention, and the attention operating characteristic. In J. Requin (Ed.),Attention and performance VII (pp. 675–686). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 562–581.
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,1, 59–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The first author was supported by funding from Project 7184 at the Human Engineering Division, Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. D.A.G. was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ventijrino, M., Gagnon, D.A. Information tradeoffs in complex stimulus structure: Local and global levels in naturalistic scenes. Perception & Psychophysics 52, 425–436 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206702
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206702