Abstract
Several studies have shown that targets defined on the basis of the spatial relations between objects yield highly inefficient visual search performance (e.g., Logan, 1994; Palmer, 1994), suggesting that the apprehension of spatial relations may require the selective allocation of attention within the scene. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that depth relations might be different in this regard and might support efficient visual search. This hypothesis was based, in part, on the fact that many perceptual organization processes that are believed to occur early and in parallel, such as figure-ground segregation and perceptual completion, seem to depend on the assignment of depth relations. Despite this, however, using increasingly salient cues to depth (Experiments 2–4) and including a separate test of the sufficiency of the most salient depth cue used (Experiment 5), no evidence was found to indicate that search for a target defined by depth relations is any different than search for a target defined by other types of spatial relations, with regard to efficiency of search. These findings are discussed within the context of the larger literature on early processing of three-dimensional characteristics of visual scenes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Enns, J. T. (1992). Sensitivity of early human vision to 3-D orientation in line-drawings.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 143–169.
He, Z. J., &Nakayama, K. (1992). Surfaces versus features in visual search.Nature,359, 231–233.
Julesz, B. (1971).Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1015–1036.
Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention.Cognitive Psychology,28, 103–174.
Logan, G. D., &Compton, B. J. (1996). Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 159–172.
Logan, G. D., &Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garritt (Eds.),Language and space (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mack, A., Tang, B., Tuma, R., Kahn, S., &Rock, I. (1992). Perceptual organization and attention.Cognitive Psychology,24, 475–501.
Moore, C. M., &Egeth, H. (1997). Perception without attention: Evidence of grouping under conditions of inattention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 339–352.
Nakayama, K. &He, Z. J. (1995). Attention to surfaces: Beyond a Cartesian understanding of focal attention. In T. G. Papathomas (Ed.),Early vision and beyond (pp. 181–188). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakayama, K., He, Z. J., &Shimojo, S. (1995). Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. In S. Kosslyn & D. N. Osherson (Eds.),An invitation to cognitive science: Visual cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakayama, K., &Silverman, G. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions.Nature,320, 264–265.
O’Connell, K. M., & Treisman, A. A. (1990, May).Is all orientation created equal? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Sarasota, FL.
Palmer, J. (1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks.Vision Research,34, 1703–1721.
Poder, E. (1999). Search for feature and for relative position: Measurement of capacity limitations.Vision Research,39, 1321–1327.
Rensink, R. A., &Enns, J. T. (1995). Preemption effects in visual search: Evidence for low-level grouping.Psychological Review,102, 101–130.
Rensink, R. A., &Enns, J. T. (1998). Early completion of occluded objects.Vision Research,38, 2489–2505.
Steinman, S. B. (1987). Serial and parallel search in pattern vision.Perception,16, 389–398.
Wheatstone, C. (1838). On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,128, 371.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 202–238.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million search 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, 24–43.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K., &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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Support was provided by NSF Grant SBR-9728628.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moore, C.M., Elsinger, C.L. & Lleras, A. Visual attention and the apprehension of spatial relations: The case of depth. Perception & Psychophysics 63, 595–606 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194424
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194424