August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
Further evidence for automatic, feature-based grouping in multiple object tracking
Author Affiliations
  • Everett Mettler
    University of California, Los Angeles
  • Gennady Erlikhman
    University of California, Los Angeles
  • Brian Keane
    Department of Psychiatry, UMDNJ--Robert Wood Johnson Medical School\nCenter for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
  • Todd Horowitz
    Visual Attention Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital\nDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School
  • Philip Kellman
    University of California, Los Angeles
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 458. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Everett Mettler, Gennady Erlikhman, Brian Keane, Todd Horowitz, Philip Kellman; Further evidence for automatic, feature-based grouping in multiple object tracking. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):458.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Background: In a multiple object tracking task, if half the targets and half the distractors share a common feature, and remaining objects share an alternate feature, tracking performance is impaired relative to a condition in which all objects share the same features (Mettler et al., 2011). Tracking decrements appear to be due to automatic perceptual grouping. However, an alternative hypothesis is that the heterogeneity of target features impairs tracking, independent of distractor features. According to this hypothesis, even if distractor features are changed so that targets cannot group with distractors, tracking performance should continue to be poor. Method: To consider this possibility, we compared two grouping conditions for 4 different features: color, shape, size and all features combined. In both conditions, two of four targets possessed one grouping feature (e.g. red in the color condition) and two possessed an alternate feature (e.g. green). In a ‘Sharing’ condition, distractors possessed the same features in the same distribution. In a ‘Diversity’ condition, distractors possessed two features not present in the targets (e.g. yellow and purple). One target and one distractor (always distinct featurally) were presented in each screen quadrant. After targets flashed briefly, each pair orbited a central point within its respective quadrant. Participants attempted to identify each target with a mouse. Results: Overall performance was worse for the Sharing condition than for the Diversity condition (p<.001). This comparison was significant for all features except size (p = .066). Conclusion: Superior tracking in the Diversity condition argues that previously observed tracking decrements in feature sharing conditions cannot be ascribed to the effects of feature diversity. These findings support our hypothesis that shared features lead to automatic feature-based grouping between targets and distractors.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.