title: Summary statistics of size: fixed processing capacity for multiple ensembles but unlimited processing capacity for single ensembles.
abstract: We assessed the processing capacity of establishing statistical summary representations (SSRs) of mean size in visual displays using the simultaneous-sequential method. Four clusters of stimuli, each composed of several circles with various diameters, were presented around fixation. Observers searched for the cluster with the largest or smallest mean size. In the simultaneous condition, all four clusters were presented concurrently; in the sequential condition, the clusters appeared two at a time. We found that the processing capacity of SSRs for multiple ensembles was as extreme as a fixed-rate bottleneck process (Experiment 1). A control experiment confirmed that this was not caused by having to compare the results of multiple averaging processes (Experiment 2). In contrast to computing SSRs across ensembles, computing SSRs for a single ensemble using the same stimuli was consistent with unlimited-capacity processing (Experiment 3). Contrary to existing claims, summary representations appear to be extracted independently for items within single ensembles but not multiple ensembles. A developing understanding of capacity limitations in perceptual processing is discussed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa.
authors.forename: Mouna
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Attarha
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa.
authors.forename: Cathleen M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa.
authors.forename: Shaun P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Vecera
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D012858:Size Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Mar;15(3):122-31
references.pmid: 21292539
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):106-11
references.pmid: 14738517
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Aug;18(4):713-21
references.pmid: 21538202
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Jun;37(3):813-33
references.pmid: 21443383
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 1965 Sep;78:392-402
references.pmid: 14344081
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1967 Jul;68(1):29-46
references.pmid: 6046307
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Sep;62(9):1716-22
references.pmid: 19382009
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1969 Feb;79(2):1-16
references.pmid: 5779623
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):392-8
references.pmid: 18399893
references.citation: Nature. 1970 Apr 11;226(5241):177-8
references.pmid: 5437004
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Aug;70(6):946-54
references.pmid: 18717382
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1964 Aug;52:446-54
references.pmid: 14208323
references.citation: Vision Res. 1989;29(1):47-59
references.pmid: 2773336
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Aug 19;9(9):7.1-12
references.pmid: 19761340
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Oct;70(7):1325-6; discussion 1335-6
references.pmid: 18927014
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Jan;94(3):B101-11
references.pmid: 15617666
references.citation: Vision Res. 1997 Nov;37(22):3181-92
references.pmid: 9463699
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Nov 20;390(6657):279-81
references.pmid: 9384378
references.citation: Vision Res. 2013 Mar 7;79:8-16
references.pmid: 23274647
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Sep 4;17(17):R751-3
references.pmid: 17803921
references.citation: Vision Res. 1992 May;32(5):931-41
references.pmid: 1604862
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Oct;138(2):289-301
references.pmid: 21903186
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Feb;75(2):278-86
references.pmid: 23188732
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Oct 02;9(11):1.1-13
references.pmid: 20053064
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):484-9
references.pmid: 21374095
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Aug 22;8(11):9.1-8
references.pmid: 18831603
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jul;74(5):810-5
references.pmid: 22565575
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2011 Mar;22(3):384-92
references.pmid: 21296808
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Feb;39(1):233-44
references.pmid: 22642216
references.citation: J Vis. 2013 Feb 12;13(2):18
references.pmid: 23404158
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Mar;12(2):157-62
references.pmid: 11340926
references.citation: Vision Res. 2003 Feb;43(4):393-404
references.pmid: 12535996
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Apr;21(4):560-7
references.pmid: 20424102
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Apr;40(2):556-65
references.pmid: 24128345
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 Oct 26;11(12):
references.pmid: 22031908
references.citation: Vision Res. 2005 Mar;45(7):891-900
references.pmid: 15644229
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Feb;142(2):245-50
references.pmid: 23376135
references.citation: J Vis. 2012 Oct 22;12(11):
references.pmid: 23090611
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Jun;35(3):718-34
references.pmid: 19485687
references.citation: Vision Res. 1994 Jul;34(13):1703-21
references.pmid: 7941377
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 May 26;11(5):4
references.pmid: 21617025
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Jul;70(5):772-88
references.pmid: 18613626
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):622-8
references.pmid: 17614871
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2012 Mar;66(1):63-9
references.pmid: 22390476
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1972 Apr;93(1):72-82
references.pmid: 5013342
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Oct;11(5):862-9
references.pmid: 15732695