title: Global image properties do not guide visual search.
abstract: While basic visual features such as color, motion, and orientation can guide attention, it is likely that additional features guide search for objects in real-world scenes. Recent work has shown that human observers efficiently extract global scene properties such as mean depth or navigability from a brief glance at a single scene (M. R. Greene & A. Oliva, 2009a, 2009b). Can human observers also efficiently search for an image possessing a particular global scene property among other images lacking that property? Observers searched for scene image targets defined by global properties of naturalness, transience, navigability, and mean depth. All produced inefficient search. Search efficiency for a property was not correlated with its classification threshold time from M. R. Greene and A. Oliva (2009b). Differences in search efficiency between properties can be partially explained by low-level visual features that are correlated with the global property. Overall, while global scene properties can be rapidly classified from a single image, it does not appear to be possible to use those properties to guide attention to one of several images.
authors: Brigham and Women's Hospital, USA. m.greene@search.bwh.harvard.edu
authors: Michelle R
authors: MR
authors: Greene
authors: Jeremy M
authors: JM
authors: Wolfe
references: Percept Psychophys. 1991 May;49(5):473-80
references: 2057313
references: J Vis. 2009 Jan 08;9(1):2.1-16
references: 19271872
references: J Vis. 2005 Feb 09;5(1):81-92
references: 15831069
references: Vis Neurosci. 2009 Jan-Feb;26(1):123-31
references: 19216820
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Feb;12(1):43-65
references: 15948283
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Jan-Feb;16(1):4-14
references: 15006031
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Apr;26(2):693-716
references: 10811170
references: Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):766-86
references: 17014302
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Jun;1(2):202-38
references: 24203471
references: Network. 2003 Aug;14(3):391-412
references: 12938764
references: Psychol Sci. 2009 Apr;20(4):464-72
references: 19399976
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Sep;114(3):285-310
references: 3161978
references: Perception. 1996;25(3):305-11
references: 8804093
references: J Vis. 2010 Sep 20;10(9):8
references: 20884606
references: Vision Res. 2004 Apr;44(9):877-94
references: 14992832
references: Perception. 1982;11(3):337-46
references: 7167342
references: J Vis. 2011 Feb 25;11(2):
references: 21367757
references: Science. 1987 Jul 24;237(4813):400-2
references: 3603025
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Jun;34(3):660-75
references: 18505330
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references: 9176953
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Feb;15(2):77-84
references: 21227734
references: Vision Res. 2000;40(16):2187-200
references: 10878280
references: Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):495-500
references: 7991347
references: Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):152-60
references: 15686582
references: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Sep;41(2):176-210
references: 10968925
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references: 9176952
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Dec;36(6):1430-42
references: 20731502
references: Vision Res. 2007 Dec;47(26):3286-97
references: 17967472
references: Vision Res. 2006 Mar;46(5):614-21
references: 16236336
references: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Mar;58(2):137-76
references: 18762289
references: Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jul;5(7):629-30
references: 12032544