Formation of visual “objects” in the early computation of spatial relations

Feldman, Jacob

doi:10.3758/bf03193781

Cited by 85 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies it increases gradually in (a)-(d). In (c) and (d), the relatively high conditional complexities imply that the one-object hypothesis is predicted to prevail, while in (b), the two-objects hypothesis is predicted to prevail (confirmed by Feldman, 2007). The latter agrees with common ideas that such T-junctions between the contours of two shapes are cues that one shape occludes the other still pertaining to competence, I next discuss plain Bayesian inference.…”

Section: No Automatic Inclusion Of Occam's Razorsupporting

confidence: 65%

Structural coding versus free-energy predictive coding

Helm

2015

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focusing on visual perceptual organization, this article contrasts the free-energy (FE) version of predictive coding (a recent Bayesian approach) to structural coding (a long-standing representational approach). Both use freeenergy minimization as metaphor for processing in the brain, but their formal elaborations of this metaphor are fundamentally different. FE predictive coding formalizes it by minimization of prediction errors, whereas structural coding formalizes it by minimization of the descriptive complexity of predictions. Here, both sides are evaluated. A conclusion regarding competence is that FE predictive coding uses a powerful modeling technique, but that structural coding has more explanatory power. A conclusion regarding performance is that FE predictive coding-though more detailed in its account of neurophysiological data-provides a less compelling cognitive architecture than that of structural coding, which, for instance, supplies formal support for the computationally powerful role it attributes to neuronal synchronization.

show abstract

Section: No Automatic Inclusion Of Occam's Razorsupporting

confidence: 65%

Structural coding versus free-energy predictive coding

Helm

2015

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to linear diagrams, we quote Wagemans et al "[the] comparison of features lying on pairs of line segments is significantly faster if the segments are parallel or mirror symmetric, suggesting a fast grouping of the segments based on these cues [26]", who reference Feldman [27] as the source of this insight. As we have seen, linear diagrams use parallel line segments and so are thought to be effective for this reason.…”

Section: Subjective Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing Sets: An Empirical Comparison of Diagram Types

Chapman

Rodgers

Micallef

et al. 2014

Diagrammatic Representation and Inference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There are a range of diagram types that can be used to visualize sets. However, there is a significant lack of insight into which is the most effective visualization. To address this knowledge gap, this paper empirically evaluates four diagram types: Venn diagrams, Euler diagrams with shading, Euler diagrams without shading, and the less well-known linear diagrams. By collecting performance data (time to complete tasks and error rate), through crowdsourcing, we establish that linear diagrams outperform the other three diagram types in terms of both task completion time and number of errors. Venn diagrams perform worst from both perspectives. Thus, we provide evidence that linear diagrams are the most effective of these four diagram types for representing sets.

show abstract

“…Here, a spatiotemporal correspondence is established (to distinguish which object went where) and requires reviewing operations to construct cohesive representations of features and detect changes. Although the binding of features can happen as quickly as 200-ms (Feldman, 2007), the efficiency of this process is sensitive to cognitive load and becomes more difficult when attention or working memory resources are preoccupied with other tasks or multiple object representations (Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008;Wheeler & Treisman, 2002). Given that these are capacities for basic object perception, similar forms of early visual mechanisms for individuation and identification must be present across species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the evolution of conscious attention

Haladjian

Montemayor

2014

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to clarify the relationship between consciousness and attention through theoretical considerations about evolution. Specifically, we will argue that the empirical findings on attention and the basic considerations concerning the evolution of the different forms of attention demonstrate that consciousness and attention must be dissociated regardless of which definition of these terms one uses. To the best of our knowledge, no extant view on the relationship between consciousness and attention has this advantage. Because of this characteristic, this paper presents a principled and neutral way to settle debates concerning the relationship between consciousness and attention, without falling into disputes about the meaning of these terms. A decisive conclusion of this approach is that extreme views on the relationship between consciousness and attention must be rejected, including identity and full dissociation views. There is an overlap between the two within conscious attention, but developing a full understanding of this mechanism requires further empirical investigations.

show abstract

Formation of visual “objects” in the early computation of spatial relations

Cited by 85 publications

References 71 publications

Structural coding versus free-energy predictive coding

Structural coding versus free-energy predictive coding

Visualizing Sets: An Empirical Comparison of Diagram Types

On the evolution of conscious attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About