Human-Like Attention? A Psychophysical Comparison of Visual Search in Humans and MLLMs

Abstract Visual search is a fundamental cognitive ability. This study investigates whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit human-like difficulty signatures in visual search tasks. We compared search performance of humans ( n = 1,250) and MLLMs using identical 2D and 3D stimuli across different set sizes. Both groups showed efficient performance in feature searches, most clearly when the target had a unique color, but performance degradation in conjunction searches as set sizes increased. Additionally, we found strong correlations between human and MLLM error rates (ρ = 0.82), which suggests that MLLMs are sensitive to similar objective complexities, such as stimulus heterogeneity. However, differences were found as well: whereas humans invested extra search time to respond accurately on target-absent trials, MLLMs exhibited extreme present/absent response biases in complex searches. We conclude that MLLMs replicate high-level human performance signatures, yet their underlying computations differ significantly.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computational Brain & Behavior
Published
2026-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-026-00333-4
Primary Topic
Reading and Literacy Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human-Like Attention? A Psychophysical Comparison of Visual Search in Humans and MLLMs

Dimitra Dodou, Joost de Winter, Yke Bauke Eisma, Renchi Zhang et al.
Computational Brain & Behavior
Reading and Literacy Development
article

Human-Like Attention? A Psychophysical Comparison of Visual Search in Humans and MLLMs

Dimitra Dodou, Joost de Winter, Yke Bauke Eisma, Renchi Zhang, H. Seyffert
article en

Abstract

Abstract Visual search is a fundamental cognitive ability. This study investigates whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit human-like difficulty signatures in visual search tasks. We compared search performance of humans ( n = 1,250) and MLLMs using identical 2D and 3D stimuli across different set sizes. Both groups showed efficient performance in feature searches, most clearly when the target had a unique color, but performance degradation in conjunction searches as set sizes increased. Additionally, we found strong correlations between human and MLLM error rates (ρ = 0.82), which suggests that MLLMs are sensitive to similar objective complexities, such as stimulus heterogeneity. However, differences were found as well: whereas humans invested extra search time to respond accurately on target-absent trials, MLLMs exhibited extreme present/absent response biases in complex searches. We conclude that MLLMs replicate high-level human performance signatures, yet their underlying computations differ significantly.

Computational Brain & Behavior
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Technische Universiteit Delft
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Reading and Literacy Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.