Visual routines

Ullman, Shimon

doi:10.1016/0010-0277(84)90023-4

Cited by 862 publications

(526 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

499

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Parallel models must find some way to keep individual items distinct from each other, or else illusory conjunctions would inflate the error rate. One way to keep items distinct is to spatially index them, and while spatial indexing is often thought of as a serial process (e.g., Ullman, 1984), Pylyshyn ( 1989 ) and colleagues (e.g., Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988;Trick & Pylyshyn, 1994) suggested that four or more spatial indices may be deployed in parallel. In principle, CTVA could provide a parallel-processing account of conjunction search if it assumed multiple spatial indices.…”

Section: Code Conjunction Search Is Difficult When Distractorsmentioning

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

Section: Code Conjunction Search Is Difficult When Distractorsmentioning

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

show abstract

“…The serial visual routine model, based on Ullman's (1984) theory, predicted a monotonic increase in RT as distance increased. This prediction stemmed from the sequential, incremental nature of the movement of a mental cursor (e.g., Jolicoeur et al, 1986) or a "coloring" operation.…”

Section: Ullman (1984)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations.

Logan¹,

Compton²

1996

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of the apprehension of spatial relations differ in the predictions they make about the effects of distance between the arguments of spatial relations and the effects of distracting stimuli presented along with the arguments. One theory predicts no effect of distance, another predicts a monotonic increase in reaction time (RT) with distance, and a third predicts a monotonic decrease. Most theories predict slower RTs but reasonable accuracy when distractors are present, but 1 theory predicts chance-level accuracy. These predictions were tested in 3 sentence-picture comparison experiments, in which subjects searched for targets exemplifying the relations above and below. Distance had no effect when no distractors were present. Distractors slowed RT but did not reduce accuracy to chance levels. These results suggest modifications to many of the theories of apprehension.This article concerns the apprehension of spatial relations, such as above and below. Spatial relations are important in a number of research areas, including psycholinguistics (Clark, 1973;Garnham, 1989;Herskovits, 1986;Jackendoff, 1983;Jackendoff & Landau, 1992;Landau & Jackendoff, 1993;Levelt, 1984;Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976;Talmy, 1983;Vandaloise, 1991), cognitive neuroscience (Farah, Brunn, Wong, Wallace, & Carpenter, 1990;Hellige & Michimata, 1989;Kosslyn, 1987;Kosslyn et al., 1989;Sergent, 1991), and computational vision (Biederman, 1987;Marr & Nishihara, 1978;Ullman, 1984), as well as spatial cognition (Bryant, Tversky, & Franklin, 1992;Franklin & Tversky, 1990;Johnson-Laird, 1983;Logan, 1995;Pick & Acredolo, 1983). The purpose of this article is to distinguish between theories of the process of apprehension, focusing on their ability to account for the effects of distance between the arguments of the relation and the effects of distractors presented along with the arguments. Current theories of apprehension predict different effects of these variables.The experiments were variants of the sentence-picture comparison procedure of the 1970s (e.g., Clark, Carpenter, & Just, 1973), in which subjects were given sentences describing the spatial relation between two letters (e.g., "B ABOVE D"), followed by pictures that contained an array of letters that did or did not exemplify the relation. Half of the time, sentences and pictures corresponded; half of the time, they did not. The main independent variables were distance and distraction. Distance was varied in four equally spaced steps. To separate absolute distance from relative distance, subjects were tested with two different step sizes, Gordon D. Logan and Brian J. Compton, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois.This research was supported by Grant BNS 91-09856 from the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to Libby Weber and Sheila Guerrero for helping to test the subjects.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gordon D. Logan, Department of Psychology, University of Illiois, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820. Elecinic mail may ...

show abstract

“…matching to the target's template for identity and the encoding of explicit spatial relations (cf. [51,54,85]). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fast responses to neglected targets in visual search reflect pre-attentive processes: an exploration of response times in visual neglect

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual routines

Cited by 862 publications

References 66 publications

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

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

Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations.

Fast responses to neglected targets in visual search reflect pre-attentive processes: an exploration of response times in visual neglect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About