Literature DB >> 26505967

Feature expectation heightens visual sensitivity during fine orientation discrimination.

Sam Cheadle, Tobias Egner, Valentin Wyart, Claire Wu, Christopher Summerfield.   

Abstract

Attending to a stimulus enhances the sensitivity of perceptual decisions. However, it remains unclear how perceptual sensitivity varies according to whether a feature is expected or unexpected. Here, observers made fine discrimination judgments about the orientation of visual gratings embedded in low spatial-frequency noise, and psychophysical reverse correlation was used to estimate decision 'kernels' that revealed how visual features influenced choices. Orthogonal cues alerted subjects to which of two spatial locations was likely to be probed (spatial attention cue) and which of two oriented gratings was likely to occur (feature expectation cue). When an expected (relative to unexpected) feature occurred, decision kernels shifted away from the category boundary, allowing observers to capitalize on more informative, "off-channel" stimulus features. By contrast, the spatial attention cue had a multiplicative influence on decision kernels, consistent with an increase in response gain. Feature expectation thus heightens sensitivity to the most informative visual features, independent of selective attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26505967      PMCID: PMC4633117          DOI: 10.1167/15.14.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  30 in total

1.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model.

Authors:  M Usher; J L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Noise reveals visual mechanisms of detection and discrimination.

Authors:  Joshua A Solomon
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Bayes Solutions of Sequential Decision Problems.

Authors:  A Wald; J Wolfowitz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1949-02       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Statistical decision theory to relate neurons to behavior in the study of covert visual attention.

Authors:  Miguel P Eckstein; Matthew F Peterson; Binh T Pham; Jason A Droll
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Attention and the detection of signals.

Authors:  M I Posner; C R Snyder; B J Davidson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-06

7.  Search goal tunes visual features optimally.

Authors:  Vidhya Navalpakkam; Laurent Itti
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 8.  Do humans make good decisions?

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Konstantinos Tsetsos
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 9.  Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition.

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Global effects of feature-based attention in human visual cortex.

Authors:  Melissa Saenz; Giedrius T Buracas; Geoffrey M Boynton
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  12 in total

1.  Predictive cues reduce but do not eliminate intrinsic response bias.

Authors:  Mingjia Hu; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-06-21

Review 2.  Dissociating the impact of attention and expectation on early sensory processing.

Authors:  Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana; John T Serences
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2019-03-23

3.  Preserved capacity for learning statistical regularities and directing selective attention after hippocampal lesions.

Authors:  Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana; Larry R Squire; John T Serences
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Expectations Do Not Alter Early Sensory Processing during Perceptual Decision-Making.

Authors:  Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana; Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Annalisa Salazar; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Feature-Based Attention and Feature-Based Expectation.

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 20.229

6.  Attentional gain is modulated by probabilistic feature expectations in a spatial cueing task: ERP evidence.

Authors:  Anna Marzecová; Antonio Schettino; Andreas Widmann; Iria SanMiguel; Sonja A Kotz; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Orientation Probability and Spatial Exogenous Cuing Improve Perceptual Precision and Response Speed by Different Mechanisms.

Authors:  Syaheed B Jabar; Britt Anderson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-02-08

8.  Action sharpens sensory representations of expected outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel Yon; Sam J Gilbert; Floris P de Lange; Clare Press
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Combined expectancies: the role of expectations for the coding of salient bottom-up signals.

Authors:  Michael Wiesing; Gereon R Fink; Ralph Weidner; Simone Vossel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Stimulus expectation alters decision criterion but not sensory signal in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Ji Won Bang; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.