Literature DB >> 18585692

The different stages of visual recognition need different attentional binding strategies.

John K Tsotsos1, Antonio J Rodríguez-Sánchez, Albert L Rothenstein, Eugene Simine.   

Abstract

Many think that visual attention needs an executive to allocate resources. Although the cortex exhibits substantial plasticity, dynamic allocation of neurons seems outside its capability. Suppose instead that the visual processing architecture is fixed, but can be 'tuned' dynamically to task requirements: the only remaining resource that can be allocated is time. How can this fixed, yet tunable, structure be used over periods of time longer than one feed-forward pass? With the goal of developing a computational theory and model of vision and attention that has both biological predictive power as well as utility for computer vision, this paper proposes that by using multiple passes of the visual processing hierarchy, both bottom-up and top-down, and using task information to tune the processing prior to each pass, we can explain the different recognition behaviors that human vision exhibits. By examining in detail the basic computational infrastructure provided by the Selective Tuning model and using its functionality, four different binding processes - Convergence Binding and Partial, Full and Iterative Recurrence Binding - are introduced and tied to specific recognition tasks and their time course. The key is a provable method to trace neural activations through multiple representations from higher order levels of the visual processing network down to the early levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18585692     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.05.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  10 in total

1.  Modelling Visual Search with the Selective Attention for Identification Model (VS-SAIM): A Novel Explanation for Visual Search Asymmetries.

Authors:  Dietmar Heinke; Andreas Backhaus
Journal:  Cognit Comput       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 5.418

Review 2.  Beyond the feedforward sweep: feedback computations in the visual cortex.

Authors:  Gabriel Kreiman; Thomas Serre
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Recovery of visual search following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe; Kayela Robertson
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 2.475

Review 4.  Incremental grouping of image elements in vision.

Authors:  Pieter R Roelfsema; Roos Houtkamp
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Cognitive programs: software for attention's executive.

Authors:  John K Tsotsos; Wouter Kruijne
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-25

6.  Complexity Level Analysis Revisited: What Can 30 Years of Hindsight Tell Us about How the Brain Might Represent Visual Information?

Authors:  John K Tsotsos
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-09

Review 7.  Attention: The Messy Reality.

Authors:  John K Tsotsos
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2019-03-25

8.  Feed-forward visual processing suffices for coarse localization but fine-grained localization in an attention-demanding context needs feedback processing.

Authors:  Sang-Ah Yoo; John K Tsotsos; Mazyar Fallah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Learning a New Selection Rule in Visual and Frontal Cortex.

Authors:  Chris van der Togt; Liviu Stănişor; Arezoo Pooresmaeili; Larissa Albantakis; Gustavo Deco; Pieter R Roelfsema
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.357

10.  Texture Segregation Causes Early Figure Enhancement and Later Ground Suppression in Areas V1 and V4 of Visual Cortex.

Authors:  Jasper Poort; Matthew W Self; Bram van Vugt; Hemi Malkki; Pieter R Roelfsema
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2016-08-13       Impact factor: 5.357

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.