Gi Yeul Bae

Close encounters of the distracting kind: Identifying the cause of visual tracking errors

Why can we track only so many objects? We addressed this question by asking when and how tracking errors emerge. To test the hypothesis that many tracking errors are target/nontarget confusions emerging from close encounters, we compared standard multiple-object tracking trials with trials on which a nontarget turned a random color whenever it approached within 4° of a target. This manipulation significantly improved performance by alleviating the correspondence challenge of a close encounter. Two control experiments showed that color change benefits were not merely due to target recovery. Follow-up experiments demonstrated that color change benefits did not accrue monotonically with distance but, instead, seemed to obey a step function; and an additional experiment demonstrated that, without color changes, the frequency of close encounters predicts tracking performance. Taken together, these experiments suggest that uncertainty about target location imposes the primary constraint on tracking, at times causing errors by leading to confusions between targets and nontargets.

Two Items Remembered as Precisely as One How Integral Features Can Improve Visual Working Memory

In the ongoing debate about the efficacy of visual working memory for more than three items, a consensus has emerged that memory precision declines as memory load increases from one to three. Many studies have reported that memory precision seems to be worse for two items than for one. We argue that memory for two items appears less precise than that for one only because two items present observers with a correspondence challenge that does not arise when only one item is stored—the need to relate observations to their corresponding memory representations. In three experiments, we prevented correspondence errors in two-item trials by varying sample items along task-irrelevant but integral (as opposed to separable) dimensions. (Initial experiments with a classic sorting paradigm identified integral feature relationships.) In three memory experiments, our manipulation produced equally precise representations of two items and of one item.

Referential Coding Contributes to the Horizontal SMARC Effect.

The present study tested whether coding of tone pitch relative to a referent contributes to the correspondence effect between the pitch height of an auditory stimulus and the location of a lateralized response. When left-right responses are mapped to high or low pitch tones, performance is better with the high-right/low-left mapping than with the opposite mapping, a phenomenon called the horizontal SMARC effect. However, when pitch height is task irrelevant, the horizontal SMARC effect occurs only for musicians. In Experiment 1, nonmusicians performed a pitch discrimination task, and the SMARC effect was evident regardless of whether a referent tone was presented. However, in Experiment 2, for a timbre-judgment task, nonmusicians showed a SMARC effect only when a referent tone was presented, whereas musicians showed a SMARC effect that did not interact with presence/absence of the referent. Dependence of the SMARC effect for nonmusicians on a reference tone was replicated in Experiment 3, in which judgments of the color of a visual stimulus were made in the presence of a concurrent high- or low-pitched pure tone. These results suggest that referential coding of pitch height is a key determinant for the horizontal SMARC effect when pitch height is irrelevant to the task.

Amodal Causal Capture in the Tunnel Effect

In addition to identifying individual objects in the world, the visual system must also characterize the relationships between objects, for instance when objects occlude one another or cause one another to move. Here we explored the relationship between perceived causality and occlusion. Can one perceive causality in an occluded location? In several experiments, observers judged whether a centrally presented event involved a single object passing behind an occluder, or one object causally launching another (out of view and behind the occluder). With no additional context, the centrally presented event was typically judged as a non-causal pass, even when the occluding and disoccluding objects were different colors—an illusion known as the ‘tunnel effect’ that results from spatiotemporal continuity. However, when a synchronized context event involved an unambiguous causal launch, participants perceived a causal launch behind the occluder. This percept of an occluded causal interaction could also be driven by grouping and synchrony cues in the absence of any explicitly causal interaction. These results reinforce the hypothesis that causality is an aspect of perception. It is among the interpretations of the world that are independently available to vision when resolving ambiguity, and that the visual system can ‘fill in’ amodally.