Document Open Access Logo

Human Vision at a Glance (Invited Talk)

Authors Ruth Rosenholtz , Dian Yu

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2019.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 285 kB
  • 4 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ruth Rosenholtz
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, CSAIL, USA
Dian Yu
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, CSAIL, USA

Funding

  • Rosenholtz, Ruth: funded in part by NSF BCS-1826757
  • Yu, Dian: funded in part by NSF/NIH/BMBF IIS-1607486 to R. Rosenholtz

Cite As Get BibTex

Ruth Rosenholtz and Dian Yu. Human Vision at a Glance (Invited Talk). In 14th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 142, pp. 1:1-1:4, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2019.1

Abstract

Recent advances in human vision research have pointed toward a theory that unifies many aspects of vision relevant to information visualization. According to this theory, loss of information in peripheral vision determines performance on many visual tasks. This theory subsumes old concepts such as visual saliency, selective attention, and change blindness. It predicts the rich details we have access to at a glance. Furthermore, it provides insight into tasks not commonly studied in human vision, such as ability to comprehend connections in a network diagram, or to compare information in one part of a display with that in another.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Human-centered computing → Visualization design and evaluation methods
  • Human-centered computing → Visualization theory, concepts and paradigms
Keywords
  • human vision
  • information visualization
  • attention
  • eye movements
  • peripheral vision
  • gist
  • ensemble perception
  • search
  • saliency

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. J. J. Andriessen and H. Bouma. Eccentric vision: Adverse interactions between line segments. Vision Research, 16(1):71-78, 1976. Google Scholar
  2. B. J. Balas, L. Nakano, and R. Rosenholtz. A summary-statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual crowding. Journal of Vision, 9(12):13, 2009. Google Scholar
  3. H. Chang and R. Rosenholtz. Search performance is better predicted by tileability than by the presence of a unique basic feature. Journal of Vision, 16(10):13, 2016. Google Scholar
  4. K. A. Ehinger and R. Rosenholtz. A general account of peripheral encoding also predicts scene perception performance. Journal of Vision, 16(2):13, 2016. Google Scholar
  5. A. Hollingworth and J. M. Henderson. Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28(1):113-136, 2002. Google Scholar
  6. R. Houtkamp, H. Spekreijse, and P.R. Roelfsema. A gradual spread of attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(7):1136-1144, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194840.
  7. S. Keshvari and R. Rosenholtz. Pooling of continuous feature provides a unifying account of crowding. Journal of Vision, 16(3):39, 2016. Google Scholar
  8. F. L. Kooi, A. Toet, S. P. Tripathy, and D. M. Levi. The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision. Spatial Vision, 8(2):255-279, 1994. Google Scholar
  9. R. A. Rensink, J. K. O'Regan, and J. J. Clark. To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8:368-373, 1997. Google Scholar
  10. R. Rosenholtz. Capabilities and limitations of peripheral vision. Annual Review of Vision Science, 2(1):437-457, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-082114-035733.
  11. R. Rosenholtz, J. Huang, and K. A. Ehinger. Rethinking the role of top-down attention in vision: effects attributable to a lossy representation in peripheral vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:13, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00013.
  12. R. Rosenholtz, J. Huang, A. Raj, B. Balas, and L. Ilie. A summary statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual search. Journal of Vision, 12(14):1-17, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1167/12.4.14.
  13. B. J. Scholl. Attenuated change blindness for exogenously attended items in a flicker paradigm. Visual Cognition, 7(1-3):377-396, 2000. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394856.
  14. M. Scolari, A. Kohnen, B. Barton, and E. Awh. Spatial attention, preview, and popout: Which factors influence critical spacing in crowded displays? Journal of Vision, 7(2):7, 2007. Google Scholar
  15. M. E. Smith, L. Sharan, E. Park, L. C. Loschky, and R. Rosenholtz. Difficulty detecting changes in complex scenes depends in part upon the strengths and limitations of peripheral vision. Journal of Vision, under revision. Google Scholar
  16. B. W. Tatler, M. M. Hayhoe, M. F. Land, and D. H. Ballard. Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11(5):5, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.5.
  17. A. Treisman. How the deployment of attention determines what we see. Visual Cognition, 14:411-443, 2006. Google Scholar
  18. A. M. Treisman and G. Gelade. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1):97-136, 1980. Google Scholar
  19. J. M. Wolfe, M. L.-H. Vo, K. K. Evans, and M. R. Greene. Visual search in scenes involves selective and non-selective pathways. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(2):77-84, 2011. Google Scholar
  20. X. Zhang, J. Huang, S. Yigit-Elliot, and R. Rosenholtz. Cube search, revisited. Journal of Vision, 15(3):9, 2015. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact