Upload
miiya-wu
View
205
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Low-level visual Low-level visual saliency does not saliency does not predict changepredict change
detection in natural detection in natural scenesscenes
Stirk, A.,& Underwood, G.(2007). Journal of Vision, 7(10), 1-10.
• change blindness– Maintenance failed (Rensink,2002; Simons &
Levin, 1997)• Coherence field dissolves
– Rensink (2000)
• flicker– (Rensink ,1997)– A–blank–A’–blank-A
• Top–down and/or Bottom–up →allocation of attention
• Wright (2005)– change detection in natural scenes could be
predicted– subjective measures
• Influenced by top–down processes.
• When semantic information is low, bottom–up processes may have a greater influence on the allocation of attention
MethodsMethods
• 2x2 design• Salience (high level vs. low level)• Scene-schema(consistent vs. inconsiste
nt)
• 24 participants• 10scenes (19.7° × 13.9 °)
– 4 changed images– 1 original image
– 80 trials :4*10 change pairs 、 4*10no-change pairs
ProcedureProcedure
• 按鍵回答 “ SAME” or “DIFFERENT”• 重複” Flicker” ,直到受試者做出反應
• 練習: 8 trials ( 有 Feedback)• 正式: 80 trials ( 沒有 Feedback)
ResultsResults
• Consistency RT :– F(1, 23) = 5.38, p = .03– IC 2341.7 < C 2549.2
• Visual Saliency RT :– F(1, 23) = 1.78, p = .20,– No main effect
• Consistency ACC :– F(1, 23) = 15.55, p = .001– IC 87.3% > C 78.3%,
• Visual Saliency ACC :– F(1, 23) = 0.26, p = .62,– No main effect
DiscussionDiscussion
• Inconsistent-object detection advantage
• Categories of objects guide visual attention
• Violations to the scene-schema→stronger perceptual
representation