The binding problem

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 171-178

  Treisman, Anne ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; HUMAN; PARIETAL LOBE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0030000187     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(96)80070-5     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Van Essen DC, Felleman DJ, De Yoe EA, Olavarria J, Knierim J: Modular and hierarchical organization of extrastriate visual cortex in the macaque monkey. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1991, 55:679-696.
2. Gulyas B, Roland PE: Cortical fields participating in form and colour discrimination in the human brain. Neuroreport 1991, 2:585-588.
3. Silverman IE, Grossman M, Galetta SL, Liu GT, Rosenquist AC, Alavi A: Understanding human visual cortex: the role of functional imaging. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 1995, 8:241-254.
4. Farah MJ: Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us About Normal Vision. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1990.
5. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ, Donnelly N, Freeman T, Boucart M, Muller HM: Intermediate visual processing and visual agnosia. In The Neuropsychology of High-Level Vision. Edited by Farah MJ, Ratcliffe G. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:63-101.
6. Graham N: Visual Pattern Analyzers. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.
7. Cavanagh P: Reconstructing the third dimension: interactions between color, texture, motion, binocular disparity, and shape. Comput Vision Graphics Image Processing 1987, 37:171-195.
8. Nakayama K, Shimojo S, Ramachandran VS: Transparency: relation to depth, subjective contours and color spreading. Perception 1990, 19:497-513.
9. Stoner GR, Albright TD: Image segmentation cues in motion processing: implications for modularity in vision. J Cogn Neurosci 1993, 5:129-149.
10. Haxby JV, Grady CL, Horwitz B, Salerno J, Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M, Schapiro M, Rapoport SI: Dissociation of object and spatial processing pathways in human extrastriate cortex. In Functional Organization of the Human Visual Cortex. Edited by Gulyas B, Ottoson D, Roland PE. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1993:329-340.
11. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M: Two Cortical Visual Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1982.
12. Barlow HB: Single units and cognition: a neuron doctrine for perceptual psychology. Perception 1972, 1:371-394.
13. Olshausen BA, Anderson CH, Van Essen DC: A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information. J Neurosci 1993, 13:4700-4719.
14. Treisman A, Gelade G: A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 1980, 12:97-136.
15. Treisman A: The perception of features and objects. In Attention: Selection, Awareness and Control: A Tribute to Donald Broadbent. Edited by Baddeley A, Weiskrantz L. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993:5-35.
16. Wolfe JM, Cave KR, Franzel SL: Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1989, 15:419-433.
17. Milner P: A model for visual shape recognition. Psychol Rev 1974, 816:521-535.
18. Abeles M: Local Cortical Circuits: An Electrophysiological Study. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1982.
19. Singer W, Gray CM: Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annu Rev Neurosci 1995, 18:555-586. An excellent detailed review of the evidence supporting the temporal correlation account of feature binding.
20. McCollough C: Color adaptation of edge-detectors in the human visual system. Science 1965, 149:1115-1116.
21. Tanaka K: Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition. Science 1993, 262:685-688.
22. König P, Engel AK: Correlated firing in sensory-motor systems. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1995, 5:511-519.
23. Von der Malsburg C: Binding in models of perception and brain function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1995, 5:520-526.
24. Treisman A: Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Q J Exp Psychol [A] 1988, 40:201-237.
25. Mozer M: The Perception of Multiple Objects: A Connectionist Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1991.
26. Treisman A, Schmidt H: Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cogn Psychol 1982, 14:107-141.
27. Treisman A, Paterson R: Emergent features, attention and object perception. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1984, 10:12-21.
28. Prinzmetal W, Presti DE, Posner MI: Does attention affect visual feature integration? J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1986, 12:361-369.
29. Treisman A, Gormican S: Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. Psychol Rev 1988, 95:15-48.
30. Braun J: Visual search among items of different salience: removal of visual attention mimics a lesion in extrastriate area V4. J Neurosci 1994, 14:554-567. The author equated the difficulty of search when the target was more salient than the non-targets and when it was less salient by reducing the exposure durations for the more salient. The addition of a foveal attention task nevertheless produced a much larger reduction in performance for the less salient stimuli, suggesting that different mechanisms are involved rather than simply a difference in difficulty for a shared mechanism.
31. Schiller PH, Lee K: The role of the primate extrastriate area V4 in vision. Science 1991, 251:1251-1253.
32. Kahneman D, Treisman A, Gibbs B: The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cogn Psychol 1992, 24:175-219.
33. Cohen A, Ivry RB: Illusory conjunctions as a function of distance between objects inside and outside the focus of attention. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1990, 16:317-331.
34. Prinzmetal W: Visual feature integration in a world of objects. Curr Directions Psychol Sci 1995, 4:90-94. A review of earlier findings suggesting that binding is constrained by perceptual and conceptual grouping of elements. Illusory conjunctions occur more often, although not exclusively, within groups, suggesting a top-down component to feature integration.
35. Prinzmetal W: Principles of feature integration in visual perception. Percept Psychophys 1981, 30:330-340.
36. Prinzmetal W, Keysar B: A functional theory of illusory conjunctions and neon colors. J Exp Psychol [Gen] 1989, 118:165-190.
37. Baylis G, Driver J, McLeod P: Movement and proximity constrain miscombinations of colour and form. Perception 1992, 21:201-218.
38. Prinzmetal W, Hoffman H, Vest K: Automatic processes in word perception: an analysis from illusory conjunctions. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1991, 17:902-923.
39. Ivry RB, Prinzmetal W: Effect of feature similarity on illusory conjunctions. Percept Psychophys 1991, 49:105-116.
40. Prinzmetal W, Henderson D, Ivry R: Loosening the constraints on illusory conjunctions: assessing the roles of exposure duration and attention. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1995, 21:1362-1375. Experiments showing that illusory conjunctions (ICs) can occur between peripheral colored letters even with long exposures and without a competing attention task, when subjects fixate centrally. Thus, binding errors can be caused either by divided attention or by poor spatial resolution in peripheral vision. The paper also outlines a technique for assessing the expected IC rates from the observed proportions of different types of errors, given different assumptions about the reality of the binding problem. Models that attribute ICs to guesses could not account for the data, implying the reality of binding failures.
41. Tsal Y, Meiran N, Lavie N: The role of attention in illusory conjunctions. Percept Psychophy 1994, 55:350-358. This paper purported to test the effect of attention on the formation of ICs, and claimed to find little support. However, the conclusions seem questionable, as the methods used depend on unlikely assumptions about the control of attention: for example, the authors assume that attention can be selectively allotted to two separated digits within 160ms exposures, without encompassing three items between the digits, and that the validity of a spatial cue determined attention when their results in fact show very little effect of validity.
42. Navon D, Ehrlićh B: Illusory conjunctions: does inattention really matter? Cogn Psychol 1995, 29:59-83.
43. Lawrence DH: Two studies of visual search for word targets with controlled rates of presentation. Percept Psychophys 1971, 10:85-89.
44. Intraub H: Illusory conjunctions of forms, objects, and scenes during RSVP search. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1989, 11:431-442.
45. Keele SW, Cohen A, Ivry R, Liotti M, Yee P: Tests of a temporal theory of attentional binding. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1988, 14:444-452.
46. Fahle M, Koch C: Spatial displacement, but not temporal asynchrony, destroys figural binding. Vision Res 1995, 35:491-494. The authors used an ambiguous illusory contour figure to test whether dominance is determined by spatial alignment or by temporal synchrony. Spatial alignment was clearly dominant; substantial temporal asynchronies had no effect. Therefore, if binding is achieved by temporal synchrony, it must be internally generated, not externally paced.
47. Rock I, Nijhawan R, Palmer S, Tudor L: Grouping based on phenomenal similarity of achromatic color. Perception 1992, 21:779-789.
48. He ZJ, Nakayama K: Surfaces versus features in visual search. Nature 1992, 359:231-233.
49. Enns J, Rensink RA: Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. Psychol Rev 1991, 98:335-351.
50. Donnelly N, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ: Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1991, 17:561-570.
51. Schneider W, Shiffrin RM: Controlled and automatic human information processing. I. Detection, search and attention. Psychol Rev 1977, 84:1-66.
52. Treisman A, Vieira A, Hayes A: Automaticity and preattentive processing. Am J Psychol 1992, 105:341-362.
53. Wang QQ, Cavanagh P, Green M: Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Percept Psychophys 1994, 56:495-500. Search for an unfamiliar item (mirror imaged N or Z) among familiar items (N or Z) appears to be parallel whereas the reverse is serial, suggesting that a deviating item in a homogeneous field of familiar items can be detected without focusing attention. Detector templates for familiar letters may develop through extensive experience, and by-pass the binding of parts that is required for the perception of unfamiliar forms.
54. Fujita I, Tanaka K, Ito M, Chang K: Columns for visual features of objects in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature 1992, 360:343-346.
55. Miyashita Y: Inferior temporal cortex: where visual perception meets memory. Annu Rev Neurosci 1993, 16:245-263.
56. Nakayama K, Silverman GH: Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature 1986, 320:264-265.
57. Treisman A, Sato S: Conjunction search revisited. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1990, 16:459-478.
58. Cohen A: Asymmetries in visual search for conjunctive targets. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1993, 19:775-797.
59. Julesz B: Towards an axiomatic theory of preattentive vision. In Dynamic Aspects of Neocortical Function. Edited by Edelman GM, Gall WE, Cowan M. New York: Neurosciences Research Foundation; 1984:585-612.
60. Wolfe JM, Yu KP, Stewart MI, Shorter AD, Friedman-Hill SR, Cave KR: Limitations on the parallel guidance of visual search: color x color and orientation x orientation conjunctions. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1990, 16:879-892.
61. Wolfe JM, Friedman-Hill SR, Bilsky AB: Parallel processing of part-whole information in visual search tasks. Percept Psychophys 1994, 55:537-550.
62. Wolfe JM, Chun MM, Friedman-Hill S: Making use of texton gradients: visual search and texton grouping exploit the same parallel processes in different ways. In Early Vision and Beyond. Edited by Papathomas T. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1994:189-198. Virtual triangles were defined by three unique elements in a multi-element array. It was easy to judge the orientation of the triangle when the vertices were defined by unique colors or orientations, but impossible when they were defined only by conjunctions of color and orientation, even in displays in which any one of the three conjunctions could be detected in parallel. Apparently, we are unable to form a perceptual group from objects defined only by conjunctions of features, suggesting that grouping must precede rather than follow the binding operation.
63. Duncan J, Humphreys GW: Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev 1989, 96:433-458.
64. Humphreys GW, Muller HJ: Search via recursive rejection (SERR): a connectionist model of visual search. Cogn Psychol 1993, 25:43-110.
65. Foster DH, Ward PA: Asymmetries in oriented-line detection indicate two orthogonal filters in early vision. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 1991, 243:75-81.
66. Wolfe JM, Friedman-Hill SR, Stewart MI, O'Connell KM: The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1992, 18:34-49.
67. Treisman A: Search, similarity and the integration of features between and within dimensions. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1991, 27:652-676.
68. Yantis S: Multielement visual tracking: attention and perceptual organization. Cogn Psychol 1992, 24:295-340.
69. Yantis S, Gibson BS: Object continuity in apparent motion and attention. Can J Exp Psychol 1994, 48:182-204. Reviews evidence for shared mechanisms in attentional capture (the involuntary allocation of attention to the onset of a new object), and in the perceptual organization of a Ternus apparent motion display. The switch in the Temus display between seeing one object move around the other and seeing two objects moving as a group may reflect a change in binding and the initiation of a new perceptual object token.
70. Arguin M, Cavanagh P, Joanette Y: Visual feature integration with an attention deficit Brain Cogn 1994, 24:44-56. Patients with left brain damage were divided into those who showed little benefit from a spatial cue in responding to a contralesional stimulus, and those who showed normal benefits. When tested in feature search, the two groups were equivalent, but in a conjunction search task, those with poor spatial attention reported many more ICs than those with normal spatial attention, supporting a link between feature integration and spatial attention.
71. Cohen A, Rafal RB: Attention and feature integration: Illusory conjunctions in a patient with parietal lobe lesions. Psychol Sci 1991, 2:106-110.
72. Friedman-Hill SR, Robertson LC, Treisman A: Parietal contributions to visual feature binding: evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions. Science 1995, 269:853-855. A patient with bilateral parietal lesions made a large number of ICs between simultaneously (but not sequentially) presented objects, in addition to showing the typical loss of the ability to localize visual stimuli and the marked simultanagnosia characteristic of Balint's syndrome. The combination of deficits is consistent with the idea that feature binding and object individuation depend on an intact representation of space.
73. Petersen SE, Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Shulman GL: PET studies of parietal involvement in spatial attention: comparison of different task types. Can J Exp Psychol 1994, 48:319-338. Shows PET activation in superior parietal cortex, which is selective to shifts of spatial attention. Parietal activation accompanied a task in which subjects tracked an asterisk across a sequence of locations (either passively or under voluntary control), and one in which they searched for a conjunction target, but did not appear in maintained attention tasks that did not require spatial shifts. Supports the idea that spatial attention is involved in binding and that the parietal area is involved in its control.
74. Roland PE, Gulyas B: Visual memory, visual imagery, and visual recognition of large field patterns by the human brain: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. Cereb Cortex 1995, 5:79-93.
75. Luck SJ, Hillyard SA: Spatial filtering during visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform] 1994, 20:1000-1014. Measured event-related potentials in search. A negative component (N2pc) at around 200-300 ms was observed over contralateral posterior scalp in conditions when distractors were present and would interfere with target processing if they were not suppressed. The N2pc seems to reflect a spatial filtering operation in extrastriate cortex, beginning around 175ms after stimulus onset.
76. Luck SJ, Hillyard SA: The role of attention in feature detection and conjunction discrimination: an electrophysiological analysis. Int J Neurosci 1995, 80:281-297. A reduced P1 response from extrastriate cortex was evoked by probe stimuli in locations previously occupied by distractors immediately following a conjunction but not a feature search display. Suggests that, once invoked, the spatial filter affects processing as early as 100ms after stimulus presentation.
77. Von der Malsburg C, Schneider W: A neural cocktail-party processor. Biol Cybern 1986, 54:29-40.
78. Singer W: Synchronization of cortical activity and its putative role in information processing and learning. Annu Rev Physiol 1993, 55:349-374.
79. Gray CM, König P, Engel A, Singer W: Oscillatory responses in cat visual cortex exhibit inter-columnar synchronization which reflects global stimulus properties. Nature 1989, 338:334-337.
80. Engel AK, König P, Singer W: Direct physiological evidence for scene segmentation by temporal coding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991, 88:9136-9140.
81. Roelfsema PR, König P, Engel AK, Sireteanu R, Singer W: Reduced synchronization in the visual cortex of cats with strabismic amblyopia. Eur J Neurosci 1994, 6:1645-1655. Synchronization (but not amplitude) of responses in striate area of strabismic cats was reduced when the amblyopic eye was driven by moving gratings and bars, compared to when the normal eye received the same stimuli. Therefore, it appears that synchrony is tied to normal visual processing.
82. Sillito AM, Jones HE, Gerstein GL, West DC: Feature-linked synchronization of thalamic relay cell firing induced by feedback from the visual cortex. Nature 1994, 369:479-482. Offers a new demonstration of stimulus effects on synchronization, and shows how correlated firing in response to drifting gratings is induced in thalamic relay cells by feedback from the cortex. This may be a process in which "the feedback circuit searches for correlations that support the 'hypothesis' represented by a particular pattern of cortical activity and 'locks' the ensemble onto the stimulus."
83. Vaadia E, Haalman I, Abeles M, Bergman H, Prut Y, Slovin H, Aertsen A: Dynamics of neuronal interactions in monkey cortex in relation to behavioral events. Nature 1995, 373:515-518. The authors studied the detailed time structure of the cross correlations between neurons in relation to different events, showing patterns of correlation that are independent of firing rates. Both positive and negative correlations evolve rapidly in relation to stimulus and behavioral events, offering the flexibility that would be needed to code changes in binding with shifts of attention.
84. König P, Engel AK, Singer W: Relation between oscillatory activity and long-range synchronization in cat visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995, 92:290-294. Synchronization between cells in the same area could occur without oscillations, but synchronization between cells in separated areas or different hemispheres of cat visual cortex were always accompanied by oscillations, suggesting that oscillations may play a role in achieving synchrony across separated areas.
85. König P, Engel AK, Roelfsema PR, Singer W: How precise is neuronal synchronization? Neural Computation 1995, 7:469-485. Raises the question of how coarse coding by populations of differently tuned neurons can be reconciled with binding by synchronization. Shows in cats that synchronization can indeed occur for both optimally and suboptimally driven neurons, and that optimally activated neurons tend to lead in phase.
86. Bair W, Koch C, Newsome W, Britten K: Power spectrum analysis of bursting cells in area MT in the behaving monkey. J Neurosci 1994, 14:2870-2892.
87. Tovee JM, Rolls ET: Oscillatory activity is not evident in the primate temporal visual cortex with static activity. Neuroreport 1992, 3:369-372.
88. Tovee MJ, Rolls ET: Information encoding in short firing rate epochs by single neurons in the primate temporal visual cortex. Visual Cognition 1995, 2:35-58. An analysis of the information available in the neural response to 20 different faces in the temporal lobe of monkeys (with fixation controlled) shows that much of the discrimination is present in the first 50ms of the response, allowing little scope for temporal coding.
89. Nelson JI: Binding in the visual system. In Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Edited by Arbib MA. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1995:157-159.
90. Edelman GM: Group selection and phasic re-entrant signaling: a theory of higher brain functions. In The Mindful Brain. Edited by Edelman GM, Mountcastle VB. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1978:51-100.
91. Damasio AR: Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: a systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition 1989, 33:25-62.
92. Zeki S: A Vision of the Brain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993.
93. Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman G: Reentry and the problem of integrating multiple cortical areas: simulation of dynamic integration in the visual system. Cereb Cortex 1992, 2:310-335.
94. Wolfe JM: Guided search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bull Rev 1994, 1:202-238. A thorough review of empirical data in visual search, and an elaboration of the author's earlier model of guided search, showing how the deployment of attention in many search tasks, including some for conjunctions of highly discriminable features, can be guided by earlier parallel preattentive processes.
95. Hummel JE, Biederman I: Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychol Rev 1992, 99:480-517.
96. Biederman I: Recognition by components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 1987, 94:115-147.
97. Hummel JE, Stankiewicz BJ: An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In Attention and Performance, vol XVI. Edited by Inui T, McClelland J. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1996:in press. A modified version of the authors' earlier simulation model for the perception of three-dimensional shape, adding a mechanism for 'static' binding of each feature to its location. This gives a viewpoint-sensitive estimate of object identity before a dynamic binding process generates a viewpoint-independent structural description through temporal synchrony. This hybrid model, though more complex than others, finds support in a number of empirical findings in human object perception.
98. Niebuhr E, Koch C, Rosin C: An oscillation-based model for the neuronal basis of attention. Vision Res 1993, 33:2789-2802.
99. Schillen TB, König P: Binding by temporal structure in multiple feature domains of an oscillatory neuronal network. Biol Cybern 1994, 70:397-405. A simulation of binding for overlapping stimuli across separate modules coding disparity, color and orientation, using synchronizing and desynchronizing mechanisms. The desynchronizing connections between modules can break a false grouping based on one shared property when the overlapped objects differ in another property.
100. Crick F, Koch C: Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Semin Neurosci 1990, 2:263-275.
101. Sajda P, Finkel LH: Intermediate-level visual representations and the construction of surface perception. J Cogn Neurosci 1995, 7:267-291. Describes a model that combines low-resolution topographic grouping based on proximity and similarity, with a limited capacity, high-resolution mechanism based on temporal synchrony, which determines figure-ground relations by labeling which of two adjacent areas 'owns' the bounding contour.
102. De Carvalho LA, Roitman VL: A computational model for the neurobiological substrates of visual attention. Int J Biomed Comput 1995, 38:33-45. A computational model in which attentional selection is achieved by 'bursting' activity of neurons in V2, which inhibits competing pathways in V4, thus giving preference to the relevant object at later processing stages.
103. Lisman JE, Idiart MAP: Storage of 7±2 short-term memories in oscillatory subcycles. Science 1995, 267:1512-1515.
104. Salzman CD, Newsome WJ: Neural mechanisms for forming a perceptual decision. Science 1994, 264:231-237.