Cognitive Processing

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 343–348 | Cite as

Combined effects of expectations and visual uncertainty upon detection and identification of a target in the fog

  • Boris Quétard
  • Jean-Charles Quinton
  • Michèle Colomb
  • Giovanni Pezzulo
  • Laura Barca
  • Marie Izaute
  • Owen Kevin Appadoo
  • Martial Mermillod
Short Report

Abstract

Detecting a pedestrian while driving in the fog is one situation where the prior expectation about the target presence is integrated with the noisy visual input. We focus on how these sources of information influence the oculomotor behavior and are integrated within an underlying decision-making process. The participants had to judge whether high-/low-density fog scenes displayed on a computer screen contained a pedestrian or a deer by executing a mouse movement toward the response button (mouse-tracking). A variable road sign was added on the scene to manipulate expectations about target identity. We then analyzed the timing and amplitude of the deviation of mouse trajectories toward the incorrect response and, using an eye tracker, the detection time (before fixating the target) and the identification time (fixations on the target). Results revealed that expectation of the correct target results in earlier decisions with less deviation toward the alternative response, this effect being partially explained by the facilitation of target identification.

Keywords

Visual search Perceptual decision-making Mouse-tracking Perceptual uncertainty Expectations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was approved by the French Comité de Protection des Personnes “Sud-Est VI” (IRB00008526, CE65, 2014). The authors would like to thank Annique Smeding for her comments on the submitted version of this article.

Funding

This work was funded by grants from the French program “investissement d’avenir” managed by the National Research Agency (ANR), from the European Union (Auvergne European Regional Development Funds -ERDF- of Auvergne region) and from the “Région Auvergne” in the framework of the IMobS3 LabEx (ANR-10-LABX-16-01).

References

  1. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59(4):390–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruhn P (2013) Emergence of spontaneous anticipatory hand movements in a probabilistic environment. Adv Cogn Psychol 9(2):62–73PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Castelhano MS, Heaven C (2010) The relative contribution of scene context and target features to visual search in scenes. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(5):1283–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Castelhano MS, Pollatsek A, Cave KR (2008) Typicality aids search for an unspecified target, but only in identification and not in attentional guidance. Psychon Bull Rev 15(4):795–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dale R, Kehoe C, Spivey MJ (2007) Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Mem Cognit 35(1):15–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Drugowitsch J, Moreno-Bote R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN, Pouget A (2012) The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making. J Neurosci 32(11):3612–3628PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Flowers JH (1990) Priming effects in perceptual classification. Percept Psychophys 47(2):135–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman JB, Ambady N (2010) Mouse tracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav Res Methods 42(1):226–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Friston K, Adams RA, Perrinet L, Breakspear M (2012) Perceptions as hypotheses: saccades as experiments. Front Psychol 3:1–20Google Scholar
  10. Hayes AF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the New millennium. Commun Monogr 76(4):408–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollingworth A, Henderson JM (1998) Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? J Exp Psychol Gen 127(4):398–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kietzmann T, Geuter S, König P (2011) Overt visual attention as a causal factor of perceptual awareness. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22614PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lepora N, Pezzulo G (2015) Embodied choice: how action influences perceptual decision making. PLoS Comput Biol 11(4):e1004110PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Malcolm GL, Henderson JM (2009) The effects of target template specificity on visual search in real-world scenes: evidence from eye movements. J Vis 9(11):1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Riou B, Rey AE, Vallet GT, Cuny C, Versace R (2014) Perceptual processing affects the reactivation of a sensory dimension during a categorization task. Q J Exp Psychol 68(6):1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Quétard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Charles Quinton
    • 3
    • 4
  • Michèle Colomb
    • 5
  • Giovanni Pezzulo
    • 6
  • Laura Barca
    • 6
  • Marie Izaute
    • 1
    • 2
  • Owen Kevin Appadoo
    • 7
  • Martial Mermillod
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
  1. 1.LAPSCOClermont University, Blaise Pascal UniversityClermont-FerrandFrance
  2. 2.LAPSCOCNRS, UMR 6024Clermont-FerrandFrance
  3. 3.Pascal InstituteClermont University, Blaise Pascal UniversityClermont-FerrandFrance
  4. 4.Pascal InstituteCNRS, UMR 6602AubièreFrance
  5. 5.Département Laboratoire de Clermont-FerrandCEREMAClermont-FerrandFrance
  6. 6.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and TechnologiesCNRRomeItaly
  7. 7.Pascal InstituteClermont University, Auvergne UniversityClermont-FerrandFrance
  8. 8.LPNCUniversité Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance
  9. 9.LPNCCNRS, UMR 5105GrenobleFrance
  10. 10.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations