23 found
Sort by:
  1. Brian J. Scholl & Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Tracking Multiple Items Through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood.
    In three experiments, subjects attempted to track multiple items as they moved independently and unpredictably about a display. Performance was not impaired when the items were briefly (but completely) occluded at various times during their motion, suggesting that occlusion is taken into account when computing enduring perceptual objecthood. Unimpaired performance required the presence of accretion and deletion cues along fixed contours at the occluding boundaries. Performance was impaired when items were present on the visual field at the same times and (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Erik W. Cheries, Stephen R. Mitroff, Karen Wynn & Brian J. Scholl (2009). Do the Same Principles Constrain Persisting Object Representations in Infant Cognition and Adult Perception?: The Cases of Continuity and Cohesion. In Bruce M. Hood & Laurie Santos (eds.), The Origins of Object Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Jonathan I. Flombaum, Brian J. Scholl & Laurie R. Santos (2009). Spatiotemporal Priority as a Fundamental Principle of Object Persistence. In Bruce M. Hood & Laurie Santos (eds.), The Origins of Object Knowledge. Oxford University Press. 135--164.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jonathan I. Flombaum, Brian J. Scholl & Zenon W. Pylyshyn (2008). Attentional Resources in Visual Tracking Through Occlusion: The High-Beams Effect. Cognition 107 (3):904-931.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Brian J. Scholl (2007). Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology. Mind and Language 22 (5):563–591.
    What makes an object the same persisting individual over time? Philosophers and psychologists have both grappled with this question, but from different perspectives—philosophers conceptually analyzing the criteria for object persistence, and psychologists exploring the mental mechanisms that lead us to experience the world in terms of persisting objects. It is striking that the same themes populate explorations of persistence in these two very different fields—e.g. the roles of spatiotemporal continuity, persistence through property change, and cohesion violations. Such similarities may reflect (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Stephen Darling, Tim Valentine, Stephen R. Mitroff, Brian J. Scholl, Karen Wynn, Jessica A. Sommerville, Amanda L. Woodward, Amy Needham, Jyrki Tuomainen & Tobias S. Andersen (2005). Number 1 Regular Articles Laura Lakusta and Barbara Landau (Johns Hopkins University) Starting at the End: The Importance of Goals in Spatial Language, 1–33. [REVIEW] Cognition 96:287-289.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen R. Mitroff & Brian J. Scholl (2005). Forming and Updating Object Representations Without Awareness: Evidence From Motion-Induced Blindness. Vision Research 45 (8):961-967.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Stephen R. Mitroff, Brian J. Scholl & Karen Wynn (2005). The Relationship Between Object Files and Conscious Perception. Cognition 96 (1):67-92.
  9. Steve Most, Brian J. Scholl, E. Clifford & Daniel J. Simons (2005). What You See is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the Capture of Awareness. Psychological Review 112 (1):217-242.
  10. Brian J. Scholl (2005). Innateness and (Bayesian) Visual Perception: Reconciling Nativism and Development. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York.
  11. Brian J. Scholl (2005). Innateness and (Bayesian) Visual Perception. In Peter Carruthers (ed.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York. 34.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Brian J. Scholl (2004). Can Infants' Object Concepts Be Trained? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (2):49-51.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Brian J. Scholl & Daniel J. Simons (2001). Change Blindness, Gibson, and the Sensorimotor Theory of Vision. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):1004-1006.
    We suggest that the sensorimotor “theory” of vision is really an unstructured collection of separate ideas, and that much of the evidence cited in its favor at best supports only a subset of these ideas. As an example, we note that work on change blindness does not “vindicate” (or even speak to) much of the sensorimotor framework. Moreover, the ideas themselves are not always internally consistent. Finally, the proposed framework draws on ideas initially espoused by James Gibson, but does little (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Brian J. Scholl & Yaoda Xu (2001). The Magical Number 4 in Vision. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):145-146.
    Some of the evidence for a “magical number 4” has come from the study of visual cognition, and Cowan reinterprets such evidence in terms of a single general limit on memory and attention. We evaluate this evidence, including some studies not mentioned by Cowan, and argue that limitations in visual processing are distinct from those involved in other memory phenomena.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Brian Scholl, Brian J. Scholl, Michael Kubovy, David van Valkenburg, Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Jacob Feldman, Susan Carey, Fei Xu & Claudia Uller (2001). Numbers 1, 2 Special Issue: Objects and Attention. Cognition 80 (301):301-302.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Steve Most, Daniel J. Simons, Brian J. Scholl & Christopher Chabris (2000). Sustained Inattentional Blindness: The Role of Location in the Detection of Unexpected Dynamic Events. Psyche 6 (14).
  17. Brian J. Scholl (2000). Attenuated Change Blindness for Exogenously Attended Items in a Flicker Paradigm. Visual Cognition 7:377-396.
  18. Brian J. Scholl & Patrice D. Tremoulet (2000). Perceptual Causality and Animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (8):299-309.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Alan M. Leslie & Brian J. Scholl (1999). Modularity, Development and 'Theory of Mind'. Mind and Language 14 (1):131-153.
    Psychologists and philosophers have recently been exploring whether the mechanisms which underlie the acquisition of ‘theory of mind’ (ToM) are best charac- terized as cognitive modules or as developing theories. In this paper, we attempt to clarify what a modular account of ToM entails, and why it is an attractive type of explanation. Intuitions and arguments in this debate often turn on the role of develop- ment: traditional research on ToM focuses on various developmental sequences, whereas cognitive modules are thought (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Brian J. Scholl & Alan M. Leslie (1999). Modularity, Development and "Theory of Mind". Mind and Language 14 (1):131-153.
    Psychologists and philosophers have recently been exploring whether the mechanisms which underlie the acquisition of ‘theory of mind’ (ToM) are best charac- terized as cognitive modules or as developing theories. In this paper, we attempt to clarify what a modular account of ToM entails, and why it is an attractive type of explanation. Intuitions and arguments in this debate often turn on the role of _develop-_ _ment_: traditional research on ToM focuses on various developmental sequences, whereas cognitive modules are thought (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Alan M. Leslie, Fei Xu, Patrice D. Tremoulet & Brian J. Scholl (1998). Indexing and the Object Concept: Developingwhat'andwhere'systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (1):10-18.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Brian J. Scholl (1997). Neural Constraints on Cognitive Modularity? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):575-576.
    Is (some) innate cognitive modularity consistent with a lack of innate neural modularity? Quartz & Sejnowski's (Q&S's) implicit negative answer to his question fuels their antinativist and antimodular cognitive conclusions. I attempt here to suggest a positive answer and to solicit discussion of this crucial issue.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Brian J. Scholl (1997). Reasoning, Rationality, and Architectural Resolution. Philosophical Psychology 10 (4):451-470.
    Recent evidence suggests that performance on reasoning tasks may reflect the operation of a number of distinct cognitive mechanisms and processes. This paper explores the implications of this view of the mind for the descriptive and normative assessment of reasoning. I suggest that descriptive questions such as “Are we equipped to reason using rule X?” and normative questions such as “Are we rational?” are obsolete—they do not possess a fine enough grain of architectural resolution to accurately characterize the mind. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation