Skip to main content
Log in

Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention

Brain and Mind

Abstract

Because the visual system cannot process all of the objects, colors, and features present in a visual scene, visual attention allows some visual stimuli to be selected and processed over others. Most research on visual attention has focused on spatial or location-based attention, in which the locations occupied by stimuli are selected for further processing. Recent research, however, has demonstrated the importance of objects in organizing (or segregating) visual scenes and guiding attentional selection. Because of the long history of spatial attention research, theories of spatial attention are more mature than theories of other visual processes, such as object segregation and object attention. In the present paper, I outline a biased competition account of object segregation and attention, following similar accounts that have been developed for spatial attention (Desimone and Duncan, 1995). In my biased competition account, I seek to understand how some objects can be segregated and selected over other objects in a complex visual scene. Under this account, there are two sources of visual information that allow an object to be processed over other objects: bottom-up information carried by the physical stimulus and top-down information based on an observer's goals. I use the biased competition account to combine many diverse findings from the object segregation and attention literatures into a common framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baylis, G.C., 1994: Visual attention and objects: Two-object cost with equal convexity, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, G.C. and Driver, J., 1993: Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19, 451–470.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, G.C. and Driver, J., 1992: Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors, Perception & Psychophysics 51, 145–162.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., 1987: Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding, Psychological Review 94, 115–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Behrmann, M. and Haimson, C., 1999: The cognitive neuroscience of visual attention, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9, 158–163.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Behrmann, M., Zemel, R. and Mozer, M.C., 1998: Object-based attention and occlusion: Evidence from normal subjects and a computational model, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24, 1011–1036.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesen, C., 1990: A theory of visual attention, Psychological Review 97, 523–547.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K. and McClelland, J.L., 1990: On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect, Psychological Review 97, 332–361.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.D. and Huston, T.A., 1994: Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance, in C. Umiltá and M. Moscovitch (eds.), Attention and Performance XV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 453–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, R. and Duncan, J., 1995: Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention, Annual Review of Neuroscience 18, 193–222.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, J. and Baylis, G.C., 1989: Movement and visual attention: The spotlight metaphor breaks down, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15, 448–456.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, J. and Baylis, G.C., 1996: Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matchingm, Cognitive Psychology 31, 248–306.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, J. and Baylis, G.C., 1998: Attention and visual object segregationm, in R. Parasuraman (ed.), The Attentive Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 299–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J., 1984: Selective attention and the organization of visual information, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 501–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. and Humphreys, G.W., 1989: Visual search and stimulus similarity, Psychological Review 96, 433–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egly, R., Driver, J. and Rafal, R.D., 1994: Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 161–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B.A. and Eriksen, C.W., 1974: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task, Perception & Psychophysics 16, 143–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C.W. and Hoffman, J., 1973: The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays, Perception & Psychophysics 14, 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C.W. and St. James, J.D., 1986: Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model, Perception & Psychophysics 40, 225–240.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egeth, H.E. and Yantis, S., 1997: Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course, Annual Review of Psychology 48, 269–297.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egly, R., Driver, J. and Rafal, R.D., 1994: Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 161–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, B.S., 1994: Visual attention and objects: One versus two or convex versus concave? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 203–207.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilds, K.S. and Vecera, S.P., submitted: The Influence of Spatial Attention on Object-based Selection. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Harter,M.R. and Aine, C.J., 1984: Brain mechanisms of visual selective attention, in R. Parasuraman and D.R. Davies (eds.), Varieties of Attention. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, G.E. and Lang, K.J., 1985: Shape recognition and illusory conjunctions, in Ninth Annual Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos, CA.: Morgan-Kaufmann, pp. 252–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D.D. and Richards, W.A., 1984: Parts of recognition, Cognition 18, 65–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D.D. and Singh, M., 1997: Salience of visual parts, Cognition 63, 29–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., 1985: The time to name disoriented natural objects, Memory & Cognition 13, 289–303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Julesz, B., 1984: A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision, Trends in Neurosciences 6, 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwisher, N.G. and Driver, J., 1992: Objects, attributes, and visual attention: Which, what, and where, Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienker, P.K., Sejnowski, T.J., Hinton, G.E. and Schumacher, L.E., 1986: Separating figure from ground with a parallel network, Perception 15, 197–216.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S.M., 1987: Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: A computational approach, Psychological Review 94, 148–175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A.F. and Jacobson, A., 1991: Perceptual organization and focussed attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing, Perception & Psychophysics 50, 267–284.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A.F., Tham, M.-P. and Yeh, Y.-Y., 1991: Movement and focused attention: A failure to replicate, Perception & Psychophysics 50, 537–546.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D. and Brown, V., 1989: Theory of attentional operations in shape identification, Psychological Review 96, 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamme, V.A.F., 1995: The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 15, 1605–1615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N. and Driver, J., 1996: On the spatial extent of attention in object-based visual selection, Perception & Psychophysics 58, 1238–1251.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D.G., 1985: Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D.G., 1987: Three-dimensional object recognition from single two-dimensional images, Artificial Intelligence 31, 355–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D., 1982: Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozer, M.C. and Sitton, M., 1998: Computational modeling of spatial attention, in H. Pashler (ed.), Attentions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 341–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozer, M.C., Zemel, R.S., Behrmann, M. and Williams, C.K.I., 1992: Learning to segment images using dynamic feature binding, Neural Computation 4, 650–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U., 1967: Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. and Becklen, R., 1975: Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events, Cognitive Psychology 7, 480–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Craven, K.M., Downing, P.E. and Kanwisher, N., 1999: fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection, Nature 401, 584–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S.E. and Rock, I., 1994: Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1, 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A., 1994: Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization, Current Directions in Psychological Science 3, 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A., 1999: What's in a stage name? Comment on Vecera and O'Reilly (1998), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25, 276–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. and Gibson, B.S., 1991: The initial identification of figure-ground relationships: Contributions from shape recognition processes, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 29, 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. and Gibson, B.S., 1993: Shape recognition inputs to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional displays, Cognitive Psychology 25, 383–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. and Gibson, B.S., 1994a: Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours, Perception & Psychophysics 56, 551–564.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. and Gibson, B.S., 1994b: Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril, Psychological Science 5, 253–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A., Harvey, E.M. and Weidenbacher, H., 1991: Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Which routes count? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17, 1075–1089.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. and Hochberg, J., 1983: Opposed-set measurement procedure: A quantitative analysis of the role of local cues and intention in form perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J.R. and Kubovy, M., 1986: Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization, in K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman and J.P. Thomas (eds), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, volume II. New York: Wiley, pp. 36.1–36.46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner,M.I., 1980: Orienting of attention, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32A, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner,M.I., Snyder, C.R.R. and Davidson, B.J., 1980: Attention and the detection of signals, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 109, 160–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, G.M., Snyder, C.R.R. and Richards, J.T., 1976: Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2, 522–530.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roelfsema, P.R, Lamme, V.A.F. and Spekreijse, H., 1998: Object-based attention in the primary visual cortex of the macaque monkey, Nature 395, 376–381.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., 1975: An Introduction to Perception. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, E., 1915/1958: Figure and ground, in D.C. Beardslee and M. Wertheimer (eds), Readings in Perception. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, pp. 194–203. (Original work published 1915.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagi, D. and Julesz, B., 1984: Detection versus discrimination of visual orientation, Perception 13, 619–628.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandon, P.A., 1990: Simulating visual attention, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2, 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, P.G. and Murphy, G.L., 1994: The ontogeny of part representation in object concepts, in D.L.Medin (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivations, Volume 31.San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 305–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejnowski, T.J. and Hinton, G.E., 1987: Separating figure from ground with a boltzmann machine, in M.A. Arbib and A.R. Hanson (eds), Vision, Brain, and Cooperative Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT, pp. 703–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G.L., 1992: Attentional modulation of a figural aftereffect, Perception 21, 7–19.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, G. and Weichselgartner, E., 1995: Episodic theory of the dynamics of spatial attention, Psychological Review 102, 503–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, M.J., 1995: Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2, 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A., 1988: Features and objects. The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40A, 201–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. and Gelade, G.A., 1980: A feature-integration theory of attention, Cognitive Psychology 12, 96–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P., 1994: Grouped locations and object-based attention: Comment on Egly, Driver, & Rafal (1994), Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 316–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P., Behrmann, M. and Filapek, J.C., in press: Attending to the parts of a single object: Part-based selection limitations, Perception & Psychophysics.

  • Vecera, S.P., Behrmann, M. and McGoldrick, J., 2000: Selective attention to the parts of an object, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7, 301–308.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P. and Farah, M.J., 1994: Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 146–160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P. and Farah, M.J., 1997: Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? Perception & Psychophysics 59, 1280–1296.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P. and Luck, S.J., 2000: Attention, in V.S. Ramachandran (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Human Brain. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P. and O'Reilly, R.C., 1998: Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: An interactive account, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24, 441–462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vecera, S.P. and O'Reilly, R.C., 2000: Graded effects in hierarchical figure-ground organization: Reply to Peterson (1999), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26, 1221–1231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S.E. and Kramer, A.F., 1999: Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization, Perception & Psychophysics 61, 31–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J.M., 1994: Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1, 202–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J.M., 1998: Visual search, in H. Pashler (ed.), Attention. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 15–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. and Weisstein, N., 1983: Sharp targets are detected better against a figure, and blurred targets are detected better against a background, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9, 194–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, G.F., Vogel, E.K. and Luck, S.J., submitted: Visual Search Remains Efficient when Working Memory is Full. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Yantis, S., 1998: Control of visual attention, in H. Pashler (ed.), Attention. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 223–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S. and Jonides, J., 1984: Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, 601–621.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zipser, K., Lamme, V.A.F. and Schiller, P.H., 1996: Contextual modulation in primary visual cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 16, 7376–7389.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vecera, S.P. Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention. Brain and Mind 1, 353–384 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011565623996

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011565623996

Navigation