Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Surfaces versus features in visual search

Abstract

OFTEN implicit in the interpretation of visual search tasks is the assumption that the detection of targets is determined by the feature-coding properties of low-level visual processing1,2. But higher level processes have also been implicated as visual search ability is enhanced in a depth plane3 or when two-dimensional shapes are interpreted as three-dimensional forms4,5. Here we manipulate binocular disparity to degrade visual search, so that otherwise identical features become parts of surfaces through perceptual completion, rendering them less clearly distinguishable as targets and abstractors. Our results indicate that visual search has little or no access to the processing level of feature extraction but must have as an input a higher level process of surface representation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Julesz, B. Nature 290, 91–97 (1981).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Treisman, A. & Gelade, G. Cognitive Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakayama, K. & Silverman, G. H. Nature 320, 264–265 (1986).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Enns, J. T. & Rensink, R. Psychol. Sci. 1, 323–326 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleffner, D. & Ramachandran, V. Percept. Psychophys. 52, 18–36 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakayama, K., Shimojo, S. & Silverman, G. H. Perception 18, 55–68 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakayama, K. & Shimojo, S. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 40, 911–924 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kanisza, G. Organization in Vision, Essays in Gestalt Perception (Prager, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shimojo, S., Silverman, G. H. & Nakayama, K. Vision Res. 29, 619–626 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimojo, S. & Nakayama, K. Perception 19, 285–299 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fox, R. & Patterson, R. Percept Psychophys. 30, 513–520 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beck, J. Percept. Psychophys. 1, 300–302 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bergen, J. R. & Julesz, B. Nature 303, 696–698 (1983).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Malik, J. & Perona, P. J. opt. Soc. Am. A7, 923–932 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Treisman, A. & Souther, J. J. exp. Psychol: Gen. 114, 285–310 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, Z., Nakayama, K. Surfaces versus features in visual search. Nature 359, 231–233 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/359231a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/359231a0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing