Perceptual organization and attention

Mack, Arien; Benyu, Tang; Tuma, Regina; Kahn, S. M.; Rock, Irvin

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90016-u

Cited by 202 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The basic ®nding, across several experiments (see Mack & Rock, 1998, for recent extensions), was that observers seemed to know surprisingly little about the segmentation of the background display, in response to the surprise question. From this basic result, plus various control observations, Mack et al (1992) reached their radical conclusion that no Gestalt grouping takes place without attention.…”

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In other words, under conditions where the observer has no speci®c intention with respect to the grouping display, being engaged with a different demanding visual task instead, which involves a completely separate visual stimulus at another location (e.g. Mack & Rock, 1998;Mack, Tang, Tuma, Kahn, & Rock, 1992;Rock, Linnett, Grant, & Mack, 1992). From the perspective of attention research, we think their studies posed exactly the right kind of question about segmentation processes.…”

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. Gestalt grouping without attention:`inattentional blindness' reconsidered Mack et al (1992) and Rock, Linnett et al (1992) correctly noted that some of the paradigms traditionally thought to tap`preattentive' processing may in fact involve diffuse attention, plus some intention by the observer to see particular visual properties (see also Joseph, Chun, & Nakayama, 1996). For instance, in visual search studies (e.g.…”

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treisman, 1986), observers typically look for a speci®c target, and know that all locations on the screen may be task-relevant. Mack et al (1992) suggested that in order to test whether segmentation processes can truly operate without attention, one needs a situation where the observer has no intention to perform the segmentation, being engaged in some other demanding visual task for another stimulus at a different location (see Joseph et al, 1996;Lavie, 1995, for arguments that the level of demand may be critical). Mack et al (1992) presented subjects with displays in which a central cross appeared, with a Gestalt grouping display (or texture segmentation display) as its surrounding background.…”

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues concerning selective attention provoke new questions about visual segmentation, and vice-versa. We illustrate this by describing our recent work on grouping under conditions of inattention, on change blindness for background events and the residual processing of undetected background changes, on modal versus amodal completion in visual search, and the differential effects of these two forms of completion on attentional processes, and on attentional modulation of lateral interactions thought to arise in early visual cortex. Many of these results indicate that segmentation processes substantially constrain attentional processes, but the reverse in¯uence is also apparent, suggesting an interactive architecture. We discuss how the`proto-objects' revealed by studies of segmentation and attention (i.e. the segmented perceptual units which constrain selectivity) may relate to other object-based notions in cognitive science, and we wrestle with their relation to phenomenal visual awareness. q

show abstract

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attention and Image Segmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In turn, those who have looked at systematic biases in peripheral localization did not look at the effect of central task load (see, e.g., Müsseler et al, 1999;van der Heijden et al, 1999; though see Prinzmetal et al, 1998, for a hint of an effect). Moreover, those that did include a loading task often presented it visually, concentrated at fixation, and hence, the shrinkage of the functional field of view may have been due to visual attention being spatially highly focused in the first place, rather than due to cognitive load per se (Chan & Courtney, 1993;Holmes et al, 1977;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Mack, Tang, Tuma, & Kahn, 1992;Plainis et al, 2001;Prinzmetal et al, 1998;Williams, 1982). Interesting in this respect is that J.…”

Section: Tunnel Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Olivers

Humphreys²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detection or discrimination of the second of 2 targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task is often temporarily impaired-a phenomenon termed the attentional blink. This study demonstrated that the attentional blink also affects localization performance. Spatial cues pointed out the possible target positions in a subsequent visual search display. When cues were presented inside an attentional blink (as induced by an RSVP task), the observers' capacity to use them was reduced. This effect was not due to attention being highly focused, to general task switching costs, or to complete unawareness of the cues. Instead, the blink induced a systematic localization bias toward the fovea, reflecting what appears to be spatial compression.

show abstract

Attention

Egeth¹,

Lamy²

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amount of information available to our senses greatly exceeds the information processing capacity of our brain. This chapter reviews what is known about how the selectivity of attention allows us to deal with this overload. One major focus of the chapter concerns the efficiency of selection. A discussion of early research that was driven by the question of whether selection was early or late in the information processing stream is followed by a more general consideration of the factors affecting the efficiency of attentional selectivity. The extensive evidence that selection of stimuli appears to be mediated by spatial location is reviewed, as well as more recent research suggesting that other bases for selection may be used. The other major focus of the chapter concerns the extent to which unattended portions of the visual field are processed. We consider here two general approaches to the study of “preattentive” processing: divided attention tasks in which preattentive processes may be performed in parallel with attention widely distributed over the visual field and dual task paradigms in which a preattentive task is one that can proceed when attention is presumably exhausted by some other task. We consider the implications of recent studies on change blindness, inattentional blindness, repetition blindness, and the attentional blink.

show abstract

Perceptual organization and attention

Cited by 202 publications

References 13 publications

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About