Evidence for feature perturbations

Wolford, George; Shum, Kit H.

doi:10.3758/bf03204459

Cited by 109 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our findings relate to illusory conjunctions and feature migration (20)(21)(22). As in these phenomena, features of one object are incorrectly bound to another.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through

Herzog

Koch²

2001

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We characterize a class of spatio-temporal illusions with two complementary properties. Firstly, if a vernier stimulus is flashed for a short time on a monitor and is followed immediately by a grating, the latter can express features of the vernier, such as its offset, its orientation, or its motion (feature inheritance). Yet the vernier stimulus itself remains perceptually invisible. Secondly, the vernier can be rendered visible by presenting gratings with a larger number of elements (shine-through). Under these conditions, subjects perceive two independent ''objects'' each carrying their own features. Transition between these two domains can be effected by subtle changes in the spatio-temporal layout of the grating. This should allow psychophysicists and electrophysiologists to investigate feature binding in a precise and quantitative manner.

show abstract

“…Finally, our findings relate to illusory conjunctions and feature migration (20)(21)(22). As in these phenomena, features of one object are incorrectly bound to another.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through

Herzog

Koch²

2001

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the CTVA fits are encouraging. They suggest that the model could be extended to deal with the other cases in the literature (e.g., Chastain, 1982;Ivry & Prinzmetal, 1991;Lasaga & Hecht, 1991;Prinzmetal & Keysar, 1989;Prinzmetal & Mills-Wright, 1984;Prinzmetal, Treiman, & Rho, 1986;Wolford & Shum, 1980). The model did not deal with the initial digit-report task or the shift of attention from the digits to the target in any of the ex-71 was able to improve the fit and capture the quantitative difference between the large and small spotlight conditions by allowing the standard deviation of the feature distributions to vary between spotlight conditions, following Ashby et al (1996) who fitted the same data by allowing larger variance in the large spotlight condition.…”

Section: Ctvamentioning

confidence: 99%

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Logan

1996

Psychological Review

281

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a theory that inte~ates space-based and object-based approaches to visual attention. The theory puts together M. P. van Oeffelen and P. G. Vos's ( 1982Vos's ( , 1983) COntour DEtector (CODE) theory of perceptual grouping by proximity with C. Bundesen's (1990) theory of visual attention (TVA). CODE provides input to TVA, accounting for spatially based between-object selection, and TVA converts the input to output, accounting for feature-and category-based withinobject selection. CODE clusters nearby items into perceptual groups that are both perceptual objects and regions of space, thereby integrating object-based and space-based approaches to attention. The combined theory provides a quantitative account of the effects of grouping by proximity and dis~nce between items on reaction time and accuracy data in 7 empirical situations that shaped the current literature on visual spatial attention.For the last decade the attention literature has been embroiled in a debate over the nature of visual spatial attention that focuses on the "thing" that attention selects (e.g., Baylis & Driver, 1993;Driver & Baylis, 1989;Duncan, 1984;Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994;Kramer & Jacobson, 1991;Vecera & Farah, 1994). Advocates of space-based attention argue that attention selects regions of space independent of the objects they contain. Attention is like a spotlight illuminating a region of space. Objects that fall within the beam are processed; objects that fall outside it are not (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974;Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Posner, 1980;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Gormican, 1988). Advocates of object-based attention argue that attention selects objects rather than regions of space. Selection is spatial because objects necessarily occupy regions of space, but objects rather than the regions themselves are the things that are selected (Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kahneman & Treisman, 1984;Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1992;Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Objectbased theories assume that attention only selects regions of space that are occupied by objects, whereas space-based theories assume that attention can select empty regions of space (cf. Yantis, 1992).The purpose of this article is to propose a theory of visual spatial attention that integrates space-based and object-based views. The theory takes a computational approach to the problem, characterizing attention in terms of representations and the processes that operate on them. It differs from most ap- proaches to attention by being concerned with the representation of space and the representation of objects, incorporating a theory of perceptual organization and a theory of selection. The resolution of the controversy derives from the theory's assumptions about representation.The article begins by describing five important questions that face any theory of visual spatial attention. The answers proposed by the new theory are presented by way of describing the theory. The theory is applied to seven important paradigms that shaped the cur...

show abstract

“…An explanation for this more nuanced result may reside in the extensive literature that deals with the phenomenon of "illusory conjunctions" (e.g., Prinzmetal, Diedrichsen, & Ivry, 2001;Treisman & Schmidt, 1982;Wolford & Shum, 1980).…”

Section: Illusory Conjunctions Feature Migrations and Error Rtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrete-Slots Models of Visual Working-Memory Response Times

Donkin¹,

Nosofsky²,

Shiffrin³

et al. 2013

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much recent research has aimed to establish whether visual working memory (WM) is better characterized by a limited number of discrete all-or-none slots or by a continuous sharing of memory resources. To date, however, researchers have not considered the response-time (RT) predictions of discrete-slots versus shared-resources models. To complement the past research in this field, we formalize a family of mixed-state, discrete-slots models for explaining choice and RTs in tasks of visual WM change detection. In the tasks under investigation, a small set of visual items is presented, followed by a test item in 1 of the studied positions for which a change judgment must be made. According to the models, if the studied item in that position is retained in 1 of the discrete slots, then a memory-based evidence-accumulation process determines the choice and the RT; if the studied item in that position is missing, then a guessing-based accumulation process operates. Observed RT distributions are therefore theorized to arise as probabilistic mixtures of the memory-based and guessing distributions. We formalize an analogous set of continuous shared-resources models. The model classes are tested on individual subjects with both qualitative contrasts and quantitative fits to RT-distribution data. The discrete-slots models provide much better qualitative and quantitative accounts of the RT and choice data than do the shared-resources models, although there is some evidence for "slots plus resources" when memory set size is very small. Visual working memory (WM) is the short-term memory system that maintains visual representations of stimulus inputs. It serves as a foundation for numerous cognitive processes and tasks, including the ability to locate targets embedded in distractors, to comprehend and reason about visual displays, and to detect changes in visual scenes. NIH Public AccessAn ongoing theoretical debate concerns decision making in visual WM: Is it best characterized in terms of discrete "slots," each with all-or-none properties, or in terms of resources shared in a more continuous fashion across a set of to-be-remembered items (e.g., Alvarez & Cavanaugh, 2004;Awh, Barton, & Vogel, 2007;Barton, Ester, & Awh, 2009;Bays, Catalao, & Husain, 2009;Bays, Gorgoraptis, Wee, Marshall, & Husain, 2011;Bays & Husain, 2008;Cowan, 2001;Cowan & Rouder, 2009;Luck & Vogel, 1997;Pashler, 1988;Rouder et al., 2008;van den Berg, Shin, Chou, & George, 2012;Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2001;Wilken & Ma, 2004;Zhang & Luck, 2008)?According to the discrete-slots view, visual WM makes available some number of slots for storing to-be-remembered items. The slot-based memories are conceptualized as being allor-none: When memory is probed, if the test item occupies one of the discrete slots, then the observer can judge its presence with no loss in resolution, regardless of the number of other items in the set of to-be-remembered objects. By contrast, if the object has not been stored in one of the discrete slots, then there is a complete los...

show abstract

Evidence for feature perturbations

Cited by 109 publications

References 28 publications

Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through

Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Discrete-Slots Models of Visual Working-Memory Response Times

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About