Journal of the Indian Institute of Science

, Volume 97, Issue 4, pp 435–442 | Cite as

Statistical Summary Perception in Vision

  • Narayanan Srinivasan
Review Article


In the last 15 years, significant efforts have been made to investigate statistical processing of object information. This includes computing properties such as mean or variance of features of multiple objects present in a visual display. Unlike visual search performance for individual objects, which is typically dependent on set size, mean estimation is usually not dependent on set size. The paper reviews studies on the nature of representations used in statistical processing and consolidation of the relevant information in working memory. The paper also discusses the different attributes such as orientation, size and emotions that have been studied in the context of estimating the mean of those attributes. One prominent question is the role of attention in statistical processing. While some argue that attention is not needed for statistical processing, others argue that attention or in some cases distributed attention is necessary for statistical processing. The paper critically evaluates the opposing views and also presents possible issues that need to be resolved in future.


Statistical summary Focused attention Distributed attention Mean Capacity limitations Diversity Stable perception Awareness Perceptual grouping CDA 


  1. 1.
    Haberman J, Whitney D (2012) Ensemble perception: Summarizing the scene and broadening the limits of visual processing. In: Wolfe J, Robertson L (eds) From perception to consciousness: searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whitney D, Haberman J, Sweeny TD (2013) From textures to crowds: Multiple levels of summary statistical perception. In: Werner JS, Chalupa LM (eds) The new visual neurosciences. MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp 695–710Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer B (2015) A selective summary of visual averaging research and issues up to 2000. J Vis 15(4):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavanagh P, Alvarez GA (2005) Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends Cogn Sci 9:349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pylyshyn ZW, Storm RW (1988) Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vis 3:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alvarez GA (2011) Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 15(3):122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ariely D (2001) Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties. Psychol Sci 12:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baijal S, Nakatani C, van Leeuwen C, Srinivasan N (2013) Processing statistics: an examination of focused and distributed attention using event related potentials. Vis Res 85:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baijal S, Srinivasan N (2011) Consolidation of statistical information of multiple objects in working memory. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:1733–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chong SC, Evans KK (2011) Distributed versus focused attention (count vs. estimate). WIRES Cogn Sci 2:634–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chong SC, Treisman A (2005) Statistical processing: computing the average size in the perceptual groups. Vis Res 45:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haberman J, Whitney D (2010) The visual system discounts emotional deviants when extracting average expression. Atten Percept Psychophys 72:1825–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chong SC, Treisman A (2003) Representation of statistical properties. Vis Res 43:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marchant AP, de Fockert JW (2009) Priming the mean representation of a set. Q J Exp Psych 62(10):1889–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corbett JE, Melcher D (2014) Stable statistical representations facilitate visual search. J Exp Psych Human Percept Perform 40(5):1915–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corbett JE, Wurnitsch N, Schwartz A, Whitney D (2012) An aftereffect of adaptation to mean size. V Cogn 20(2):211–231Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parkes L, Lund J, Angelucci A, Solomon JA, Morgan M (2001) Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neurosci 4(7):739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watamaniuk SNJ, Duchon A (1992) The human visual-system averages speed information. Vis Res 32(5):931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams DW, Sekuler R (1984) Coherent global motion percepts from stochastic local motions. Vis Res 24(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haberman J, Whitney D (2007) Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Curr Biol 17(17):R751–R753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haberman J, Harp T, Whitney D (2009) Averaging facial expression over time. J Vis 9(11):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haberman J, Whitney D (2009) Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 35(3):718–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Im HY, Chong SC (2014) Mean size as a unit of visual working memory. Percept 43:663–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Corbett JE (2017) The whole warps the sum of its parts: gestalt-defined-group mean size biases memory for individual objects. Psychol Sci 28(1):12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greene MR, Oliva A (2009) The briefest of glances: the time course of natural scene understanding. Psychol Sci 20:464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hubert-Wallander B, Boynton GM (2015) Not all summary statistics are made equal: evidence from extracting summaries across time. J Vis 15(4):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolfe JM (2007) Guided Search 4.0: current Progress with a model of visual search. In: Gray W (ed) Integrated models of cognitive systems. Oxford, New York, pp 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chun MM, Potter MC (1995) A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(1):109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alvarez GA, Oliva A (2008) The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention. Psychol Sci 19(4):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alvarez GA, Oliva A (2009) Spatial ensemble statistics are efficient codes that can be represented with reduced attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7345–7350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Attarha M, Moore CM (2015) The perceptual processing capacity of summary statistics between and within feature dimensions. J Vis 15(4):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huang L (2015) Statistical properties demand as much attention as object features. PLoS ONE 10:e0131191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bronfman ZZ, Brezis N, Jacobson H, Usher M (2014) We see more than we can report: ‘‘Cost free” color phenomenality outside focal attention. Psychol Sci 25:1394–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ward EJ, Bear A, Scholl BJ (2016) Can you perceive ensembles without perceiving individuals?: the role of statistical perception in determining whether awareness overflows access. Cognition 152:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohen MA, Dennett DC, Kanwisher N (2016) What is the bandwidth of perceptual experience? Trends Cogn Sci 20(5):324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jackson-Nielsen M, Cohen MA, Pitts MA (2017) Perception of ensemble statistics requires attention. Conscious Cogn 48:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Srivastava P, Kumar D, Srinivasan N (2010) Time course of visual attention across perceptual levels and objects. Acta Psychol 135:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Srinivasan N, Srivastava P, Lohani M, Baijal S (2009) Focused and distributed attention. Prog Brain Res 176:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Treisman A (2006) How the deployment of attention determines what we see. Visual Cogn 14:411–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wright RD, Ward LM (2008) Orienting of attention. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baijal S, Srinivasan N (2009) Types of attention matter for awareness: a study with color afterimages. Conscious Cogn 18(4):1039–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Srinivasan N, Hanif A (2010) Global-happy and local-sad: perceptual processing affects emotion identification. Cogn Emot 24:1062–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Srinivasan N, Gupta R (2011) Global-local processing affects recognition of distractor emotional faces. Q J Exp Psychol 64:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Myczek K, Simons DJ (2008) Better than average: alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Percept Psychophys 70:772–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chong SC, Joo SJ, Emmanouil TA, Treisman A (2008) Statistical processing: not so implausible after all. Percept Psychophys 70:1327–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chong SC, Treisman A (2005) Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays. Percept Psychophys 67:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vogel EK, Machizawa MG (2004) Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory. Nature 428:748–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vogel EK, McCollough AW, Machizawa MG (2005) Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to visual working memory. Nature 438:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Machizawa MG, Goh CC, Driver J (2012) Human visual short-term memory precision can be varied at will when the number of retained items is low. Psychol Sci 23:554–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cant JS, Sun SC, Xu Y (2015) Distinct cognitive mechanisms involved in the processing of single objects and object ensembles. J Vis 15(4):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sweeny TD, Wurnitsch N, Gopnik A, Whitney D (2015) Ensemble perception of size in 4–5-year-old children. Develop Sci 18(4):556–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fan JE, Turk-Browne NB, Taylor JA (2016) Error-driven learning in statistical summary perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42(2):266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhao J, Ngo N, McKendrick R, Turk-Browne NB (2011) Mutual interference between statistical summary perception and statistical learning. Psychol Sci 22(9):1212–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Block N (2011) Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access. Trends Cogn Sci 15:567–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Luck SJ, Vogel EK (2013) Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences. Trends Cogn Sci 17:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rensink RA (2002) Change Detection. Annual Rev Psychol 53:245–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Percept 28:1059–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mack A, Rock I (2001) Inattentional Blindness. MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Steeves JK et al (2004) Behavioral and neuroimaging evidence for a contribution of color texture information to scene classification in a patient with visual agnosia. J Cogn Neurosci 16:955–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    McClelland T, Bayne T (2016) Ensemble coding and two conceptions of perceptual sparsity. Trends Cogn Sci 20(9):641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hochstein S, Pavlovskaya M, Bonneh YS, Soroker N (2015) Global statistics are not neglected. J Vis 15(4):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Utochkin IS (2015) Ensemble summary statistics as a basis for rapid visual categorization. J Vis 15(4):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Manassi M, Liberman A, Chaney W, Whitney D (2017) The perceived stability of scenes: serial dependence in ensemble representations. Sci Rep 7:1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Science 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive SciencesUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations