TY - JOUR
T1 - Variability of dot spread is overestimated
AU - Witt, Jessica K.
AU - Fu, Mengzhu
AU - Dodd, Michael D.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1632222 and SES-2030059) to J.K.W. and NSF/EPSCoR Grant #1632849 to M.D.D.
Funding Information:
Jessica K. Witt, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University. Mengzhu Fu and Michael D. Dodd, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Jessica Witt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-1599 Stimuli, data, and analysis scripts can be found at https://osf.io/xgsjc/. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1632222 and SES-2030059) to J.K.W. and NSF/EPSCoR Grant #1632849 to M.D.D. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Jessica K. Witt, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. Jessica.Witt@colostate.edu
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Psychonomic Society, Inc.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - Previous research has demonstrated that individuals exhibit a tendency to overestimate the variability of both low-level features (e.g., color, orientation) and mid-level features (e.g., size) when items are presented dynamically in a sequential order, a finding we will refer to as the variability overestimation effect. Because previous research on this bias used sequential displays, an open question is whether the effect is due to a memory-related bias or a vision-related bias. To assess whether the bias would also be apparent with static, simultaneous displays, and to examine whether the bias generalizes to spatial properties, we tested participants’ perception of the variability of a cluster of dots. Results showed a consistent overestimation bias: Participants judged the dots as being more spread than they actually were. The variability overestimation effect was observed when there were 10 or 20 dots but not when there were 50 dots. Taken together, the results of the current study contribute to the ensemble perception literature by providing evidence that simultaneously presented stimuli are also susceptible to the variability overestimation effect. The use of static displays further demonstrates that this bias is present in both dynamic and static contexts, suggesting an inherent bias existent in the human visual system. A potential theoretical account—boundary effect—is discussed as a potential underlying mechanism. Moreover, the present study has implications for common visual tasks carried out in real-world scenarios, such as a radiologist making judgments about distribution of calcification in breast cancer diagnoses.
AB - Previous research has demonstrated that individuals exhibit a tendency to overestimate the variability of both low-level features (e.g., color, orientation) and mid-level features (e.g., size) when items are presented dynamically in a sequential order, a finding we will refer to as the variability overestimation effect. Because previous research on this bias used sequential displays, an open question is whether the effect is due to a memory-related bias or a vision-related bias. To assess whether the bias would also be apparent with static, simultaneous displays, and to examine whether the bias generalizes to spatial properties, we tested participants’ perception of the variability of a cluster of dots. Results showed a consistent overestimation bias: Participants judged the dots as being more spread than they actually were. The variability overestimation effect was observed when there were 10 or 20 dots but not when there were 50 dots. Taken together, the results of the current study contribute to the ensemble perception literature by providing evidence that simultaneously presented stimuli are also susceptible to the variability overestimation effect. The use of static displays further demonstrates that this bias is present in both dynamic and static contexts, suggesting an inherent bias existent in the human visual system. A potential theoretical account—boundary effect—is discussed as a potential underlying mechanism. Moreover, the present study has implications for common visual tasks carried out in real-world scenarios, such as a radiologist making judgments about distribution of calcification in breast cancer diagnoses.
KW - Ensemble perception
KW - Perceived spread
KW - Variability
KW - Visual biases
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132127269&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85132127269&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13414-022-02528-w
DO - 10.3758/s13414-022-02528-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 35708846
AN - SCOPUS:85132127269
SN - 1943-3921
VL - 85
SP - 494
EP - 504
JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics
JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics
IS - 2
ER -