��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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
An Independent, Empirical Route to Nonconceptual Content.Monima Chadha - 2009 - Consciousness and Cognition 18 (2):439-448.
Similar books and articles
Some Puzzling Findings in Multiple Object Tracking: I. Tracking Without Keeping Track of Object Identities.Zenon Pylyshyn - manuscript
Some Puzzling Findings in Multiple Object Tracking (MOT): II. Inhibition of Moving Nontargets.Zenon Pylyshyn - manuscript
What is a Visual Object? Evidence From Target Merging in Multiple Object Tracking.Brian J. Scholla - 2001 - Cognition 80 (1-2):159-177.
Further Evidence for Inhibition of Moving Nontargets in Multiple Object Tracking.Zenon Pylyshyn - manuscript
Selective Nontarget Inhibition in Multiple Object Tracking (MOT).Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Charles E. King & James E. Reilly - unknown
Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention.Shaun P. Vecera - 2000 - Brain and Mind 1 (3):353-384.
Visual Indexes, Preconceptual Objects, and Situated Vision.Zenon W. Pylyshyn - 2001 - Cognition 80 (1-2):127-158.
Preparatory Attention: Experiment and Theory.David LaBerge, L. Auclair & E. Sieroff - 2000 - Consciousness and Cognition 9 (3):396-434.
How to Define an Object: Evidence From the Effects of Action on Perception and Attention.Glyn W. Humphreys & M. Jane Riddoch - 2007 - Mind and Language 22 (5):534–547.
The Role of Novelty in Early Word Learning.Emily Mather & Kim Plunkett - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (7):1157-1177.
Is There More to Visual Attention Than Meets the Eye?Cyril Latimer - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):690-691.
Target Selection, Attention, and the Superior Colliculus.Richard J. Krauzlis - 2007 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):98-99.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads12 ( #378,732 of 2,172,789 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,903 of 2,172,789 )
How can I increase my downloads?