title: Does linear separability really matter? Complex visual search is explained by simple search.
abstract: Visual search in real life involves complex displays with a target among multiple types of distracters, but in the laboratory, it is often tested using simple displays with identical distracters. Can complex search be understood in terms of simple searches? This link may not be straightforward if complex search has emergent properties. One such property is linear separability, whereby search is hard when a target cannot be separated from its distracters using a single linear boundary. However, evidence in favor of linear separability is based on testing stimulus configurations in an external parametric space that need not be related to their true perceptual representation. We therefore set out to assess whether linear separability influences complex search at all. Our null hypothesis was that complex search performance depends only on classical factors such as target-distracter similarity and distracter homogeneity, which we measured using simple searches. Across three experiments involving a variety of artificial and natural objects, differences between linearly separable and nonseparable searches were explained using target-distracter similarity and distracter heterogeneity. Further, simple searches accurately predicted complex search regardless of linear separability (r = 0.91). Our results show that complex search is explained by simple search, refuting the widely held belief that linear separability influences visual search.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Vighneshvel
authors.forename: S P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Arun
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005556:Form Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D009949:Orientation; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: perception; shape; similarity
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2003 Nov;56(8):1373-88
references.pmid: 14578090
references.citation: Vision Res. 2000;40(22):3099-115
references.pmid: 10996614
references.citation: Vision Res. 1996 May;36(10):1439-65
references.pmid: 8762762
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Sep;21(9):1208-14
references.pmid: 20713637
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2011 Jun;33(11):1991-2002
references.pmid: 21645095
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2010 Jan 27;30(4):1258-69
references.pmid: 20107054
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Feb;18(1):34-49
references.pmid: 1532193
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):589-97
references.pmid: 12021764
references.citation: Science. 2000 Feb 25;287(5457):1506-8
references.pmid: 10688803
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Apr;29(2):483-502
references.pmid: 12760630
references.citation: Vision Res. 2011 Jul 1;51(13):1526-37
references.pmid: 20837042
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1989 Jul;96(3):433-58
references.pmid: 2756067
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Oct;117(4):1113-43
references.pmid: 20822291
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Jun;5(6):495-501
references.pmid: 15152199
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 May 27;9(5):25.1-18
references.pmid: 19757903
references.citation: Vision Res. 2012 Dec 1;74:86-92
references.pmid: 22561524
references.citation: Vision Res. 1999 Aug;39(16):2681-95
references.pmid: 10492830
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 Aug;15(3):419-33
references.pmid: 2527952
references.citation: J Vis. 2006 Oct 17;6(11):1180-93
references.pmid: 17209728
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Feb 12;9(2):14.1-23
references.pmid: 19271924
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Jul;63(5):918-26
references.pmid: 11521856
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1998 Aug;60(6):1083-93
references.pmid: 9718965
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952