Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motor planner
Very Short Term Store
Senses
Filter
Store of conditional
probabilities of past
events (in LTM)
* Cued
Uncued
Along the
path
*
Does the improved detection in intermediate locations entail that the “spotlight of
attention” moves continuously through empty space?
Exogenous vs endogenous
control of attention
In the Posner paradigm illustrated in the last slide, attention was automatically
grabbed by the onset of a spot (exogenous attention allocation). Other
experiments showed that this could be done under voluntary (endogenous)
control – e.g., by providing an arrow at fixation indicating what direction to
move attention.
Posner, Tsal and others showed that when attention goes from A to B,
intermediate locations are maximally sensitive to detecting a signal at
intermediate times.
Both exogenous and endogenous control produces movement of attention, but
they differ in some of their effects.
Endogenously moved attention does not lead to Inhibition of Return (we
will turn to this next)
Endogenous controlled movement does not appear to affect detection
sensitivity, but it does affect discrimination
Endogenous controlled effects are stronger and appear earlier
Although the evidence suggests a continuously moving “spotlight” of attention,
there are other models that claim that this is a side-effect of an attentional
activation that fades at the starting place and grows at the target place, creating
an overlap in intermediate locations (Sperling).
We can select a shape even when it is
intertwined among other similar shapes
Is there a figure on the right that is the same as the figure on the left?
When the figure on the left is one that had appeared as an ignored
figure on the right, RT is long and accuracy poor.
This “negative priming” effect persisted over 200 intervening trials
and lasted for a month!
Another negative
attention effect:
Inattentional
Blindness
Inattentional Blindness
The background task is to report which of two arms of the + is
longer. One critical trial per subject, after about 3,4 background
trials. Another “critical” trial presented as a divided attention
control.
25% of subjects failed to see the square when it was presented in
the parafovea (2° from fixation).
But 65% failed to see it when it was at fixation!
When the background task cross was made 10% as large,
Inattentional Blindness increased from 25% to 66%.
It is not known whether this IB is due to concentration of
attention at the primary task, or whether there is inhibition of
outside regions.
In what other ways might our
information capacity be limited?
We have limitations on the input side that depend on
the acuity of the sensors and the range of physical
properties to which they respond.
But there is a limitation beyond that of acuity: The
perceptual system is limited in what it can individuate
and how many of these individuals it can deal with at
one time. The capacity to individuate is different from
the capacity to discriminate.
This notion of individuating and of individuals may be
related to Miller’s “chunks”, but it has a special role in
vision which we will explore in the next lecture
First some reason for thinking that individuating is a
distinct process
Individuating is different from discriminating
Individuating as a distinct process
Individuating has its own psychometric function: The
minimum distance for individuating is much larger than for
discriminating.
It may be that in vision our attention is limited in the
number of things we can individuate and simultaneously
access (more on this later). But how do you determine what
counts as a “thing”? See next lecture.
Individuating is a prerequisite for recognition of patterns
and other properties defined among a number of individual
parts
An example of how we can easily detect patterns if they are defined
over a small enough number of parts is in subitizing
Another area where the concept of an individual has become
important is in cognitive development, where it is clear that babies
are sensitive to the numerosity of individual things in a way that is
distinct from their perceptual abilities but is limited in its capacity
Pick out 3 dots and keep track of them
You can follow instructions to “move one up” or Move 2 right” etc so
long as at no time do you have to hold on to more than 4 dots
You can pick out 4 dots and then search through those 4 locations if
all dots change to search items (Burkell & Pylyshyn, 1997)
You can count up to 4 dots without error (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1994)
You can keep track of 4 dots through saccades (Irwin, 1996)
You can detect such basic patterns as inside(dot, contour),
Collinear(x1,x2,x3,x4), or Online(dot, contour) so long as there are a
small number of the relevant arguments to hold on to at one time.
Next: Objects and Attention
Are there collinear items (n>3)?
Several objects must be picked out at
once in making relational judgments
The same is true for other relational judgments like
inside or on-the-same-contour… etc. We must pick
out the relevant individual objects first.
When items cannot be individuated,
predicates over them cannot be evaluated
Do these figures contain one or two distinct curves?
Individuating these curves requires a “curve tracing”
operation, so Number_of_curves (C1, C2, …) takes time
proportional to the length of the shortest curve.
The figure on the left is one continuous
curve, the one on the right is two distinct
curves – as shown in color.
Another example: Subitizing vs Counting.
How many squares are there?
Subitizing is fast, accurate and only slightly
dependent on how many items there are. Only the
squares on the right can be subitized.
Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A
limited capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101(1), 80-102.
Example of subitizing popout
and non-popout features
(Count Pink vs. Count Online)
What is attention is for?
Treisman’s Attention as Glue Hypothesis
The purpose of visual attention
is to Bind properties together in
order to recognize objects
How are conjunctions of features detected?
Duncan (1984) showed that two judgments made about the same objects
are faster even when the distances and areas are controlled. He concluded
“Findings support a view in which parallel, preattentive processes
serve to segment the field into separate objects, followed by a process
of focal attention that deals with only 1 object at a time.”
Single-object superiority even
when the shapes are controlled
More controls for the Baylis study…
(Baylis, 1994)
Controls for
separability,
convexity, area…
“Objects” endure over time
Letters are faster to read if they appear in the same box where they
appeared initially. Priming travels with the object. According to the theory,
when an object first appears, a file is created for it and the properties of the
object are encoded and subsequently accessed through this object-file.
Visual neglect syndrome is object-based
Luria, 1959
End ? (for now)
Multiple Object Tracking is a methodology
for studying Object-Based attention.
Multiple Object Tracking
One of the clearest cases illustrating object-based
attention is Multiple Object Tracking
Keeping track of individual scene objects requires a
mechanism for individuating, selecting, accessing
and maintaining the identity of individuals over time
These are the functions we have proposed are carried out by
the mechanism of visual indexes (FINSTs)
We have been using a variety of methods for studying visual
indexing, including subitizing, subset selection for search,
and Multiple Object Tracking (MOT).
Multiple Object Tracking
In a typical experiment, 8 simple identical objects are
presented on a screen and 4 of them are briefly
distinguished in some visual manner – usually by
flashing them on and off.
After these 4 “targets” have been briefly identified, all
objects resume their identical appearance and move
randomly. The subjects’ task is to keep track of which
ones had earlier been designated as targets.
After a period of 5-10 seconds the motion stops and
subjects must indicate, using a mouse, which objects
were the targets.
People are very good at this task (80%-98% correct).
The question is: How do they do it?
Keep track of the objects that flash
How do we do it? What properties
of individual objects do we use?
Keep track of the objects that flash
How do we do it? What properties
of individual objects do we use?
Explaining Multiple Object Tracking
Basic finding: People (even 5 year old children, though
not most senior professors!) can track 4 to 5 individual
objects that have no unique visual properties
How is it done?
We have shown that it is unlikely that the tracking is done by
keeping a record of target locations, and updating them while
serially visiting the objects.
I have proposed that individuating and keeping track of certain
kinds of individuals is a primitive visual operation and uses
the mechanism of visual indexes or FINSTs.
Tracking is preconceptual* and preattentive§
(* § explanation is left for another occasion)
A possible location-based tracking algorithm
1. While the targets are visually distinct, scan
attention to each target in turn and encode its
location on a list.
2. When targets begin to move, check the n’th position
in the list and go to the location encoded there:
Call it Loc(n).
3. Find the closest element to Loc(n).
4. Update the actual location of the element found in
#3 in position n in the list: this becomes the new
value of Loc(n).
5. Move attention to the location encoded in the next
list position, Loc(n+1).
6. Repeat from #3 until elements stop moving.
7. Report elements whose locations are on the list.