Cargando…

Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?

Divided attention has little effect for simple tasks, such as luminance detection, but it has large effects for complex tasks, such as semantic categorization of masked words. Here, we asked whether the semantic categorization of visual objects shows divided attention effects as large as those obser...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Popovkina, Dina V., Palmer, John, Moore, Cathleen M., Boynton, Geoffrey M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.3.15
_version_ 1783665189344772096
author Popovkina, Dina V.
Palmer, John
Moore, Cathleen M.
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
author_facet Popovkina, Dina V.
Palmer, John
Moore, Cathleen M.
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
author_sort Popovkina, Dina V.
collection PubMed
description Divided attention has little effect for simple tasks, such as luminance detection, but it has large effects for complex tasks, such as semantic categorization of masked words. Here, we asked whether the semantic categorization of visual objects shows divided attention effects as large as those observed for words, or as small as those observed for simple feature judgments. Using a dual-task paradigm with nameable object stimuli, performance was compared with the predictions of serial and parallel models. At the extreme, parallel processes with unlimited capacity predict no effect of divided attention; alternatively, an all-or-none serial process makes two predictions: a large divided attention effect (lower accuracy for dual-task trials, compared to single-task trials) and a negative response correlation in dual-task trials (a given response is more likely to be incorrect when the response about the other stimulus is correct). These predictions were tested in two experiments examining object judgments. In both experiments, there was a large divided attention effect and a small negative correlation in responses. The magnitude of these effects was larger than for simple features, but smaller than for words. These effects were consistent with serial models, and rule out some but not all parallel models. More broadly, the results help establish one of the first examples of likely serial processing in perception.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7961120
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79611202021-03-23 Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition? Popovkina, Dina V. Palmer, John Moore, Cathleen M. Boynton, Geoffrey M. J Vis Article Divided attention has little effect for simple tasks, such as luminance detection, but it has large effects for complex tasks, such as semantic categorization of masked words. Here, we asked whether the semantic categorization of visual objects shows divided attention effects as large as those observed for words, or as small as those observed for simple feature judgments. Using a dual-task paradigm with nameable object stimuli, performance was compared with the predictions of serial and parallel models. At the extreme, parallel processes with unlimited capacity predict no effect of divided attention; alternatively, an all-or-none serial process makes two predictions: a large divided attention effect (lower accuracy for dual-task trials, compared to single-task trials) and a negative response correlation in dual-task trials (a given response is more likely to be incorrect when the response about the other stimulus is correct). These predictions were tested in two experiments examining object judgments. In both experiments, there was a large divided attention effect and a small negative correlation in responses. The magnitude of these effects was larger than for simple features, but smaller than for words. These effects were consistent with serial models, and rule out some but not all parallel models. More broadly, the results help establish one of the first examples of likely serial processing in perception. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2021-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7961120/ /pubmed/33704373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.3.15 Text en Copyright 2021 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Article
Popovkina, Dina V.
Palmer, John
Moore, Cathleen M.
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title_full Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title_fullStr Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title_full_unstemmed Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title_short Is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
title_sort is there a serial bottleneck in visual object recognition?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.3.15
work_keys_str_mv AT popovkinadinav isthereaserialbottleneckinvisualobjectrecognition
AT palmerjohn isthereaserialbottleneckinvisualobjectrecognition
AT moorecathleenm isthereaserialbottleneckinvisualobjectrecognition
AT boyntongeoffreym isthereaserialbottleneckinvisualobjectrecognition