Difficulty limits of visual mental imagery.

While past work has focused on the representational format of mental imagery, and the similarities of its operation and neural substrate to online perception, surprisingly little has tested the boundaries of the level of detail that mental imagery can generate. To answer this question, we take inspiration from the visual short-term memory literature, a related field which has found that memory capacity is affected by the number of items, whether they are unique, and whether and how they move. We test these factors of set size, color heterogeneity, and transformation in mental imagery through both subjective (Exp 1; Exp 2) and objective (Exp 2) measures - difficulty ratings and a change detection task, respectively - to determine the capacity limits of our mental imagery, and find that limits on mental imagery are similar to those for visual short-term memory. In Experiment 1, participants rated the difficulty of imagining 1-4 colored items as subjectively more difficult when there were more items, when the items had unique colors instead of an identical color, and when they scaled or rotated instead of merely linearly translating. Experiment 2 isolated these subjective difficulty ratings of rotation for uniquely colored items, and added a rotation distance manipulation (10° to 110°), again finding higher subjective difficulty for more items, and for when those items rotated farther; the objective measure showed a decrease in performance for more items, but not for rotational degree. Congruities between the subjective and objective results suggest similar costs, but some incongruities suggest that subjective reports can be overly optimistic, likely because they are biased by an illusion of detail.

Truth or Square: Aspect Ratio Biases Recall of Position Encodings.

Bar charts are among the most frequently used visualizations, in part because their position encoding leads them to convey data values precisely. Yet reproductions of single bars or groups of bars within a graph can be biased. Curiously, some previous work found that this bias resulted in an overestimation of reproduced data values, while other work found an underestimation. Across three empirical studies, we offer an explanation for these conflicting findings: this discrepancy is a consequence of the differing aspect ratios of the tested bar marks. Viewers are biased to remember a bar mark as being more similar to a prototypical square, leading to an overestimation of bars with a wide aspect ratio, and an underestimation of bars with a tall aspect ratio. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the aspect ratio of the bar marks indeed influenced the direction of this bias. Experiment 3 confirmed that this pattern of misestimation bias was present for reproductions from memory, suggesting that this bias may arise when comparing values across sequential displays or views. We describe additional visualization designs that might be prone to this bias beyond bar charts (e.g., Mekko charts and treemaps), and speculate that other visual channels might hold similar biases toward prototypical values.

Foveal gravity: A robust illusion of color-location misbinding.

Some types of object features, such as color, shape, or location, can be processed separately within the visual system, requiring that they be correctly "bound" to a single object via attentional selection of a subset of visual information. Forcing selection to spread too widely can cause an illusion where these features misbind to objects, creating illusory objects that were never present. Here, we present a novel display that produces a robust color-location misbinding illusion that we call foveal gravity (viewable at https://osf.io/2bndg/). When observers selected only a set of colored objects, colors were largely perceived in their correct locations. When observers additionally selected objects in the far periphery, colors in the near periphery migrated closer to the fovea on over 35% of trials. We speculate that foveal gravity occurs because locations closer to the fovea are more likely to defeat more peripheral locations in competitive interactions to "win" the task-relevant color.

Biased Average Position Estimates in Line and Bar Graphs: Underestimation, Overestimation, and Perceptual Pull.

In visual depictions of data, position (i.e., the vertical height of a line or a bar) is believed to be the most precise way to encode information compared to other encodings (e.g., hue). Not only are other encodings less precise than position, but they can also be prone to systematic biases (e.g., color category boundaries can distort perceived differences between hues). By comparison, position's high level of precision may seem to protect it from such biases. In contrast, across three empirical studies, we show that while position may be a precise form of data encoding, it can also produce systematic biases in how values are visually encoded, at least for reports of average position across a short delay. In displays with a single line or a single set of bars, reports of average positions were significantly biased, such that line positions were underestimated and bar positions were overestimated. In displays with multiple data series (i.e., multiple lines and/or sets of bars), this systematic bias still persisted. We also observed an effect of "perceptual pull", where the average position estimate for each series was 'pulled' toward the other. These findings suggest that, although position may still be the most precise form of visual data encoding, it can also be systematically biased.