Perceiving visually presented objects: Recognition, awareness, and modularity

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 218-226

  Treisman, Anne M ^a   Kanwisher, Nancy G ^b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; AWARENESS; HUMAN; NEUROBIOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; REVIEW;

EID: 0032052678     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(98)80143-8     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Gibson JJ. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. 1979;Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
2. Driver J. What can visual neglect and extinction reveal about the extent of 'preattentive' processing? Kramer AF, Coles M, Logan GD. Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention. 1996;193-223 American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
3. Milner AD, Goodale MA. The Visual Brain in Action. 1995;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Whalen PJ, Rauch SL, Etcoff NL, McInery SC, Lee MB, Jenike MA. Masked presentations of emotional expressions modulate amygdala activity without explicit knowledge. J Neurosci. 18:1998;411-418 The authors reports that the fMRI response from the amygdala to unseen emotionally expressive faces provides strong evidence for high-level perception without awareness. of outstanding interest.
5. Potter MC. Short term conceptual memory for pictures. J Exp Psychol [Hum Learn Mem]. 2:1976;509-522.
6. Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C. Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature. 381:1996;520-522 Subjects decided whether each of 4000 previously unseen photographs contained an animal or not; ERPs specific to negative responses occurred at 150 ms after stimulus onset, suggesting that much of human object recognition is based on feed-forward mechanisms. of outstanding interest.
7. Jeffreys DA. Evoked potential studies of face and object processing. Vis Cogn. 3:1996;1-38.
8. Bentin S, Allison T, Puce A, Perez E, McCarthy G. Electrophysiological studies of face perceptions in humans. J Cogn Neurosci. 8:1996;551-565 Face-specific ERPs at 172 ms (N200) were delayed but of the same amplitude for inverted versus upright faces. The ERPs were larger for eyes alone than for whole faces. Neither animal faces nor human hands elicited N200s. of special interest.
9. Allison T, Ginter H, McCarthy G, Nobre AC, Puce A, Luby M, Spencer DD. Face recognition in human extrastriate cortex. J Neurophysiol. 71:1994;821-825.
10. Sams M, Hietanen JK, Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ, Lounasmaa OV. Face-specific responses from the human inferior occipito-termporal cortex. Neuroscience. 1:1997;49-55.
11. Schendan HE, Ganis G, Kutas M. Neurophysiological evidence for visual perceptual categorization of words and faces within 150 ms. Psychophysiology. 1998;. in press.
12. Wallis G, Rolls ET. Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system. Prog Neurobiol. 51:1997;167-194.
13. Vecera SP, Farah MJ. Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? Percept Psychophys. 59:1997;1280-1296 Explored object segmentation process in which the subjects were given the task of deciding whether two Xs were on the same one of two overlapping shapes. The subjects showed better performance with familiar shapes (letters), even when sensory cues such as common region and connectedness favored unfamiliar shapes. The results support an interactive cascade model of segmentation, in which partial bottom-up information is sent to higher level object representations that, in turn, feed back to guide the segmentation process. of special interest.
14. Kahneman D, Treisman A, Gibbs B. The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cogn Psychol. 24:1992;175-219.
15. Gordon RD, Irwin DE. What's in an object file? Evidence from priming studies. Percept Psychophys. 58:1996;1260-1277.
16. Irwin DE. Integration and accumulation of information across saccadic eye movements. McClelland J, Inui T. Attention and Performance: Information Integration in Perception and Communication. XVI:1996;125-156 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
17. Kanwisher N. Repetition blindness: type recognition without token individuation. Cognition. 27:1987;117-143.
18. Chun MM, Cavanagh P. Seeing two as one: linking apparent motion and repetition blindness. Psychol Sci. 8:1997;74-78 In this cleverly designed study, two letters were made to appear as part of the same versus different motion streams by varying only the trajectories of nontarget items; the data are inconsistent with most alternative accounts and argue strongly for the token individuation explanation of repetition blindness. of outstanding interest.
19. Arnell KM, Jolicoeur P. Repetition blindness for pseudoobject pictures. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 23:1997;999-1013.
20. Raymond JE, Shapiro KL, Arnell KM. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 18:1992;849-860.
21. Chun MM. Types and tokens in visual processing: a double dissociation between the attention blink and repetition blindness. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 23:1997;738-755 Shows that different factors affect the attentional blink (item discriminability) and repetition blindness (episodic distinctiveness and repeated targets), suggesting that the two reflect different limitations on the formation of object tokens. of special interest.
22. Shapiro K, Driver J, Ward R, Sorensen R. Priming from the attentional blink: a failure to extract visual tokens but not visual types. Psychol Sci. 8:1997;95-100.
23. Shapiro KL, Caldwell J, Sorensen RE. Personal names and the attentional blink: a visual 'cocktail party' effect. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 23:1997;504-514.
24. Luck SJ, Vogel EK, Shapiro KL. Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink. Nature. 382:1996;616-618 Target words either related or unrelated to a context word were presented at several intervals after another target. Although accuracy of relatedness judgment fell sharply for targets 166 ms (but not 0 or 500 ms) after the first target (the 'attentional blink'), the N400 related - unrelated difference wave was not affected by lag. Thus, even though the word meaning is not available, it was apparently extracted, suggesting a postperceptual locus of the attentional blink. of special interest.
25. Enns JT, Di Lollo V. Attentional masking: visual interference by object substitution. Psychol Sci. 8:1997;135-139.
26. Wojciulik E, Kanwisher N, Driver J. Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus: an fMRI study. J Neurophysiol. 79:1998;1574-1579.
27. O'Craven KM, Rosen BR, Kwong KK, Treisman A, Savoy RL. Voluntary attention modulates fMRI activity in human MT-MST. Neuron. 18:1997;591-598.
28. Clark VP, Parasuraman R, Keil K, Kulansky R, Fannon S, Maisog JM, Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV. Selective attention to face identity and color studied with fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 5:1997;291-293.
29. DeSchepper B, Treisman A. Visual memory for novel shapes: implicit coding without attention. J Exp Psychol [Learn Mem Cogn]. 22:1996;27-47.
30. Treisman A, DeSchepper B. Object tokens attention and visual memory. Inui T, McClelland J. Attention and Performance: Information Integration in Perception and Communication. XVI:1996;15-46 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
31. Neumanm E, DeSchepper BG. An inhibition-based fan effect: evidence for an active suppression mechanism in selective attention. Can J Psychol. 46:1992;1-40.
32. Stankiewicz BJ, Hummel JE. The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object image: evidence for a dual representation of object shape. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 1998.
33. Mattingley JB, Davis G, Driver J. Preattentive filling-in of visual surfaces in parietal extinction. Science. 275:1997;671-674 The authors found that extinction patient V.R., who has right parietal damage, is more likely to detect removal of segments in disks in the contralesional field when they are combined with those on the ipsilesional side to create an illusory surface. The results suggest that object surfaces are created preattentively and that visual extinction affects only later conscious levels of processing. of special interest.
34. Mack A, Rock I. Inattentional Blindness: Perception Without Attention. 1998;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
35. Treisman A, Gelade G. A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol. 12:1980;97-136.
36. Robertson L, Treisman A, Friedman-Hill S, Grabowecky M. The interaction of spatial and object pathways: evidence from Balint's syndrome. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;254-276.
37. Ashbridge E, Walsh V, Cowey A. Temporal aspects of visual search studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;1121-1131.
38. Baylis GC, Driver J, Rafal RD. Visual extinction and stimulus repetition. J Cogn Neurosci. 5:1993;453-466.
39. He S, Cavanagh P, Intrilligator J. Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness. Nature. 383:1996;334-337 The authors demonstrate orientation-specific adaptation effects under conditions that do not permit awareness of the orientation (flanking by other similar gratings); this 'crowding' effect occurs when different objects cannot be attentionally resolved. Attentional resolution is greater in the lower than upper visual field, and acts as a filter restricting the availability of visual information to awareness. of outstanding interest.
40. Rensink RA, Enns JT. An object completion process in early vision. Vision Res. 1998;. in press.
41. Wolfe JM, Bennett SC. Preattentive object files: shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Res. 37:1997;25-44 This extensive set of experiments on visual search suggests that preattentive processing sets up an array of object tokens to which the relevant features have been assigned, but without any specification of their structured relations except for the part-whole assignment. Attention is required to determine the arrangement and the global shape of the elements in the search array. of special interest.
42. Wolfe JM. Inattentional amnesia. Coltheart V. Fleeting Memories. 1998;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. in press.
43. McConkie GW, Currie C. Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 22:1996;563-581.
44. Rensink RA, O'Regan JK, Clark JJ. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol Sci. 8:1997;368-373.
45. Simons DJ. In sight out of mind. Psychol Sci. 7:1996;301-305 In the most striking of many similar demonstrations, subjects approached by a stranger asking directions do not notice when the stranger is replaced by a completely different persons (while two confederates carry a door between the two conversants). Apparently, the contents of current awareness are less detailed than introspection suggests. of outstanding interest.
46. Simons DJ, Levin DT. Change blindness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1:1997;261-267.
47. Ellis HD, Young AW, Quayle AH, De Pauw KW. Reduced autonomic responses to faces in Capgras delusion. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol]. 264:1997;1085-1092.
48. Perenin M-T, Rossetti Y. Grasping without form discrimination in a hemianopic field. Neuroreport. 7:1996;793-797.
49. Carey DP, Harvey M, Milner AD. Visuomotor sensitivity for shape and orientation in a patient with visual form agnosia. Neuropsychologia. 34:1996;329-337.
50. Faillenot I, Toni I, Decety J, Gregoire MC, Jeannerod M. Visual pathways to object-oriented action and object recognition: functional anatomy with PET. Cereb Cortex. 7:1997;77-85.
51. Biederman I. Recognition by components: a thoery of human image understanding. Psychol Rev. 94:1987;115-147.
52. Tarr MJ, Bulthoff HH. Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biderman and Gerhardstein 1993. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 21:1995;1494-1505.
53. Bulthoff HH, Edelman SY, Tarr MJ. How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cereb Cortex. 3:1995;247-260.
54. Vetter T, Hurlbert A, Poggio T. View-based models of 3D object recognition: invariance to imaging transforms. Cereb Cortex. 3:1995;261-269.
55. Poggio T, Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature. 343:1990;263-266.
56. Bulthoff HH, Edelman S. Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 89:1992;60-64.
57. Poggio TA, Hurlbert A. Observations on cortical mechanisms for object recognition and learning. Koch C, Davis JL. Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain. 1994;153-182 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
58. Ullman S, Basri R. Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Trans Patt Anal Mach Intel. 13:1991;992-1006.
59. Tarr MJ, Pinker S. Orientation-dependent mechanisms in shape recognition: further issues. Psychol Sci. 2:1991;207-209.
60. Hayward WG, Tarr MJ. Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 23:1997;1511-1521 The authors used a sequential same - different matching or a naming paradigm to explore the degree of viewpoint invariance in coding of one- and two-part novel objects. They found no difference in latency up to 10 degrees, then progressive increase up to 30 degrees, questioning the achievement of viewpoint-independent structural descriptions, even for geon-based objects. of special interest.
61. Sinha P, Poggio T. I think I know that face. Nature. 384:1996;404 Describes a test for learning in the perception of three-dimensional structure, based on the perception of rigidity or nonrigidity. A rigid wire object is shown rocking through 20 degrees, followed by a test object with the same mean-angle projection, also rocking. The learned interpretation of the first is imposed on the second, resulting in a nonrigid interpretation, consistent with the suggestions of view-based representation for recognizing three-dimensinal structures. of special interest.
62. Kourtzi Z, Shiffrar M. One-shot view invariance in a moving world. Psychol Sci. 8:1997;461-466 The authors used a priming paradigm to probe the representation that is formed when an object is seen rotating in apparent motion. They found view-dependence of priming, but generalization within and just beyond the path of the apparent motion, as though the visual system links successive orientations when they are created by apparent motion and extrapolates some distance beyond the final view. of outstanding interest.
63. Logothetis NK, Sheinberg DL. Recognition and representation of visual objects in primates; psychophysics and physiology. Llinas RR, Churchland PS. The Mind-Brain Continuum. 1996;147-172 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
64. Fujita I, Tanaka K, Ito M, Chang K. Columns for visual features of objects in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature. 360:1992;343-346.
65. Fiser J, Biederman I, Cooper EE. To what extent can matching algorithms based on direct outputs of spatial filters account for human object recognition? Spatial Vision. 10:1996;237-271.
66. O'Kane BL, Biederman I, Cooper EE, Nystrom B. An account of object identification confusions. J Exp Psychol [Applied]. 3:1997;21-41.
67. Lades M, Vortbruggen JC, Buhmann J, Lange J, Von der Marlsburg C. Distortion invariant object recognition in the dynamic link architecture. IEEE Trans Comput. 42:1993;300-311.
68. Turnbull OH, Beschin N, Della Sala S. Agnosia for object orientation: implications for theories of object recognition. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;153-163.
69. Biederman I, Cooper EE. Size invariance in visual object priming. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 18:1992;121-133.
70. Cooper LA. Probing the nature of the mental representation of visual objects: evidence from cognitive dissociations. Ballesteros S. Cognitive Approaches to Human Perception. 1994;199-221 Elbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
71. Srinivas K. Size and reflection effects in priming: a test of transfer-appropriate processing. Mem Cogn. 244:1996;441-452.
72. Srinivas K. Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. J Exp Psychol [Learn Mem Cogn]. 21:1995;1019-1036.
73. Kanwisher N, Yin C, Wojciulik E. Repetition blindness for pictures: evidence for the rapid computational of abstract visual descriptions. Coltheart V. Fleeting Memories. 1998;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. in press.
74. Logothetis NK, Sheinberg DL. Visual object recognition. Annu Rev Neurosci. 19:1996;577-621.
75. Hummel JE, Stankiewicz BJ. An architecture for rapid hierarchical structural description. Inui T, McClelland J. Attention and Performance. 16:1996;93-121 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
76. Tarr MJ, Bulthoff HH, Zabinski M, Blanz V. To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychol Sci. 8:1997;282-289.
77. Gauthier I, Tarr MJ. Becoming a 'Greeble' expert: exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Res. 37:1997;1673-1682.
78. Tovee MJ, Rolls ET, Ramachandran VS. Rapid visual learning in neurones of the primate temporal visual cortex. Neuroreport. 7:1996;2757-2760 Recorded from 21 face-selective neurons in the superior temporal sulcus and area IT in monkeys. Seven of the 21 cells showed a large increase in response to binarized (hard to recognize) faces after just ten presentations of the full grey-scale versions. The increase was specific to the particular face shown, suggesting rapid learning in single neurons. of outstanding interest.
79. Dolan RJ, Fink GR, Rolls E, Booth M, Holmes A, Frackowiak RSJ, Friston KJ. How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context. Nature. 389:1997;596-599.
80. Logothetis NK, Pauls J. Psychophysical and physiological evidence for viewer-centered object representations in primates. Cereb Cortex. 3:1995;270-288.
81. Ahissar M, Hochstein S. Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning. Nature. 387:1997;401-406.
82. Rubin N, Nakayama K, Shapley R. Abrupt learning and retinal size specificity in illusory-contour perception. Curr Biol. 7:1997;461-467.
83. Humphrey KG, Symons LA, Herbert AM, Goodale MA. A neurological dissociation between shape from shading and shape from edges. Behav Brain Res. 76:1996;117-125.
84. Humphrey KG, Goodale MA, Bowen CV, Gati JS, Vilis T, Rutt BK, Menon RS. Differences in perceived shape from shading correlate with activity in early visual areas. Curr Biol. 7:1997;144-147.
85. Malach R, Reppas JB, Benson RB, Kwong KK, Jiang H, Kennedy WA, Ledden PJ, Brady TJ, Rosen BR, Tootell RBH. Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 92:1995;8135-8138.
86. Kanwisher N, Woods R, Ioacoboni M, Mazziotta J. A locus in human extrastriate cortex for visual shape analysis. J Cogn Neurosci. 91:1996;133-142.
87. Bonda E, Petrides M, Ostry D, Evans A. Specific involvement of human parietal systems and the amygdala in the perception of biological motion. J Neurosci. 16:1996;3737-3744.
88. McLeod W, Dittrich J, Driver J, Perrett D, Zihl J. Preserved and impaired detection of structure from motion by a 'motion-blind' patient. Vis Cog. 3:1996;363-392.
89. Puce A, Allison T, Spencer SS, Spencer DD, McCarthy G. Comparison of cortical activation evoked by faces measured by intracranial field potentials and functional MRI: two case studies. Hum Brian Mapp. 5:1997;298-305.
90. Moscovitch M, Winocur G, Behrmann M. What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;555-604 Investigated a relatively isolated face processing mechanism in pateint C.K.: found a reduction in accuracy for identification of upside down or configurally disrupted ('fractured') faces that was much larger than the cost seen in normal subjects. Inferred that normal face recognition depends on both orientation-sensitive face-specific mechanisms and a part-based object recognition system that is damaged in patient C.K. of outstanding interest.
91. Fried I, MacDonald K, Wilson C. Single neuron activity in human hippocampus and amygdala during recognition of faces and objects. Neuron. 18:1997;753-765.
92. Seeck M, Michel CM, Mainwaring N, Cosgrove R, Blume H, Ives J, Landis T, Schomer DL. Evidence for rapid face recognition from human scalp and intracranial electrodes. Cog Neurosci Neuropsychol. 8:1997;2749-2754.
93. Puce A, Allison T, Spencer SS, Spencer DD, McCarthy G. Comparison of cortical activation evoked by faces measured by intracranial field potentials and functional MRI: two case studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 5:1997;298-305.
94. Courtney SM, Ungerleider LG. What fMRI has taught us about human vision. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 7:1997;554-561.
95. Clark VP, Keil K, Maisog JM, Courtney S, Ungerleider S, Haxby JV. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human visual cortex during face matching: a comparison with positron emission tomography. Neuroimage. 4:1996;1-15.
96. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci. 17:1997;4302-4311 The authors used multiple fMRI test of the same cortical region (the fusiform face area) within individual subjects to demonstrate a high degree of selectivity of this region for faces and to rule out alternative accounts of the face activation (e.g. luminance confounds, subordinate-level categorization of any stimulus class, attention biases toward faces, etc.). of special interest.
97. McCarthy G, Puce A, Gore J, Allison T. Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;605-610.
98. Jacobs RA. Nature, nurture, and the development of functional specializations: a computational approach. Psych Bull Rev. 4:1997;299-309.
99. Jacobs RA, Jordan MI, Barto AG. Task decomposition through competition in a modular connectionist architecture: the what and where vision tasks. Cogn Sci. 15:1991;219-250.
100. Tanaka K. Mechanisms of visual object recognition: monkey and human studies. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 7:1997;523-529.