Literature DB >> 20121317

What is the unit of visual attention? Object for selection, but Boolean map for access.

Liqiang Huang1.   

Abstract

In the past 20 years, numerous theories and findings have suggested that the unit of visual attention is the object. In this study, I first clarify 2 different meanings of unit of visual attention, namely the unit of access in the sense of measurement and the unit of selection in the sense of division. In accordance with this distinction, I argue that an object, as commonly described, is only the unit of selection. The unit of access is better characterized as a Boolean map (Huang & Pashler, 2007), that is, the linkage of a single feature value per dimension associated with a map (i.e., a set of locations). The experiments in this study demonstrated the following: (a) Grouping items into a single object (by connecting them) does not improve the perception of these items (Experiment 1); (b) same-object advantage exists only when the features to be perceived are different dimensions of a single Boolean map and not when they belong to different parts of an object (Experiments 2 and 3); (c) cuing the relevant feature does not help perception when the features to be perceived are different dimensions of a single Boolean map but does help significantly when these features belong to different parts of an object (Experiment 4); and (d) connection, as used in Experiments 1-4, is effective in affecting object structure (i.e., affecting the mechanism of selection) in both an enumeration and a tracking task (Experiments 5 and 6). The results of these experiments, together with data available in the literature, demonstrate that the unit of access is a Boolean map, not an object.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20121317     DOI: 10.1037/a0018034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  13 in total

1.  What are the units of storage in visual working memory?

Authors:  Daryl Fougnie; Christopher L Asplund; René Marois
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Familiarity does not aid access to features.

Authors:  Liqiang Huang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-04

3.  What does visual suffix interference tell us about spatial location in working memory?

Authors:  Richard J Allen; Judit Castellà; Taiji Ueno; Graham J Hitch; Alan D Baddeley
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-01

Review 4.  Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Melissa L-H Võ; Karla K Evans; Michelle R Greene
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  The Cost of Accessing an Object's Feature Stored in Visual Working Memory.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2011-01-01

6.  The role of processing efficiency and selection history in the limit of visual awareness in shape perception.

Authors:  Makayla Szu-Yu Chen; Caitlin Megan Roscherr; Zhe Chen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.004

7.  The Gestalt principle of similarity benefits visual working memory.

Authors:  Dwight J Peterson; Marian E Berryhill
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-12

8.  The bandwidth of VWM consolidation varies with the stimulus feature: Evidence from event-related potentials.

Authors:  Renning Hao; Mark W Becker; Chaoxiong Ye; Qiang Liu; Taosheng Liu
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Dissociated mechanisms of extracting perceptual information into visual working memory.

Authors:  Zaifeng Gao; Jie Li; Jun Yin; Mowei Shen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Visual Features: Featural Strength and Visual Strength Are Two Dissociable Dimensions.

Authors:  Liqiang Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.