David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
��In four experiments we address the question whether several visual objects can be selected voluntarily (exogenously) and then tracked in a Multiple Object Tracking paradigm and, if so, whether the selection involves a different process. Experiment 1 showed that items can indeed be selected based on their labels. Experiment 2 showed that to select the complement set to a set that is automatically (exogenously) selected — e.g. to select all objects not ﬂashed — observers require additional time and that given 1080 ms they were able to select and track them as well as those selected automatically. Experiment 3 showed that the additional time needed in the previous experiment cannot be attributed solely to time required to disengage attention from the initially automatic selections. Experiment 4 showed that the added time provides a monotonically greater beneﬁt when there are more targets, suggesting a serial process. These results are discussed in relation to the Visual Index (FINST) theory which assumes that visual indexes are captured by a data-driven process. It is suggested that voluntarily allocated attention can be used to facilitate the automatic attention capture by objects of interest.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Monima Chadha (2009). An Independent, Empirical Route to Nonconceptual Content. Consciousness and Cognition 18 (2):439-448.
Similar books and articles
Zenon Pylyshyn, Some Puzzling Findings in Multiple Object Tracking: I. Tracking Without Keeping Track of Object Identities.
Zenon Pylyshyn, Some Puzzling Findings in Multiple Object Tracking (MOT): II. Inhibition of Moving Nontargets.
Brian J. Scholla (2001). What is a Visual Object? Evidence From Target Merging in Multiple Object Tracking. Cognition 80 (1-2):159-177.
Zenon W. Pylyshynb, Jacob Feldmanb & Brian J. Scholla (2001). What is a Visual Object? Evidence From Target Merging in Multiple Object Tracking. Cognition 80 (1-2):159-177.
Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Charles E. King & James E. Reilly, Selective Nontarget Inhibition in Multiple Object Tracking (MOT).
Shaun P. Vecera (2000). Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention. Brain and Mind 1 (3):353-384.
Zenon W. Pylyshyn (2001). Visual Indexes, Preconceptual Objects, and Situated Vision. Cognition 80 (1-2):127-158.
David LaBerge, L. Auclair & E. Sieroff (2000). Preparatory Attention: Experiment and Theory. Consciousness and Cognition 9 (3):396-434.
Glyn W. Humphreys & M. Jane Riddoch (2007). How to Define an Object: Evidence From the Effects of Action on Perception and Attention. Mind and Language 22 (5):534–547.
Emily Mather & Kim Plunkett (2012). The Role of Novelty in Early Word Learning. Cognitive Science 36 (7):1157-1177.
Cyril Latimer (1999). Is There More to Visual Attention Than Meets the Eye? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):690-691.
Richard J. Krauzlis (2007). Target Selection, Attention, and the Superior Colliculus. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):98-99.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads6 ( #302,951 of 1,700,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,700,257 )
How can I increase my downloads?