Attentional coding of categorical relations in scene perception: Evidence from the flicker paradigm

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 319-326

  Rosielle, Luke J ^a,b   Crabb, Brian T ^a   Cooper, Eric E ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CRITICAL FLICKER FUSION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FLICKER FUSION; HUMANS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0036615357     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196288     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ARCHAMBAULT, A., O'DONNELL, C., & SCHYNES, P. G. (1999). Blind to object changes: When learning the same object at different levels of categorization modifies its perception. Psychological Science, 10, 249-255.
2. BIEDERMAN, I. (1981). On the semantics of a glance at a scene. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 213-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. BIEDERMAN, I., & GERHARDSTEIN, P. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
5. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 89, 60-64.
6. CARLSON-RADVANSKY, L., & IRWIN, D. E. (1995). Memory for structural descriptions across eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1441-1458.
7. COOPER E. E., & WOJAN, T. J. (2000). Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic level object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 470-488.
8. DIWADKAR, V. A., & MCNAMARA, T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychological Science, 8, 302-307.
9. EPSTEIN, R., & KANWISHER, N. (1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature, 392, 598-601.
10. HENDERSON, J. M., & HOLLINGWORTH, A. (1999a). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243-271.
11. HENDERSON, J. M., & HOLLINGWORTH, A. (1999b). The role of fixation position in detecting scene changes across saccades. Psychological Science, 10, 438-443.
12. HOROWITZ, T. S., & WOLFE, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394, 575-577.
13. HUMMEL, J. E., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
14. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
15. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Spatial Vision, 5, 49-79.
16. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1994). Attention to within-object and between-object spatial representations: Multiple sites for visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 207-241.
17. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1995). Separate coding of space within and between perceptual objects: Evidence from unilateral visual neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 283-311.
18. IRWIN, D. E., & ANDREWS, R. V. (1996). Integration and accumulation of information across saccadic eye movements. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI (pp. 125-156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. JONIDES, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. KOSSLYN, S. M., CHABRIS, C. F., MARSOLEK, C. J., & KOENIG, O. (1992). Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analysis and computer simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 562-577.
21. LEVIN, D. T., & SIMONS, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 501-506.
22. LOFTUS, G. R., & LOFTUS, E. F. (1988). Essence of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
23. LOFTUS, G. R., & MACKWORTH, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 4, 565-572.
24. LOGAN, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1015-1036.
25. MACK, A., & ROCK, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. RENSINK, R. A. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 17-42.
27. RENSINK, R. A., O'REGAN, J. K., & CLARK, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368-373.
28. RENSINK, R. A., O'REGAN, J. K., & CLARK, J. J. (2000). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across brief interruptions. Visual Cognition, 7, 127-145.
29. ROSIELLE, L. J., & COOPER, E. E. (2001). Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition. Memory & Cognition, 29, 68-82.
30. SAIKI, J., & HUMMEL, J. E. (1998a). Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 227-251.
31. SAIKI, J., & HUMMEL, J. E. (1998b). Connectedness and part-relation integration in shape category learning. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1138-1156.
32. SHELTON, A. L., & MCNAMARA, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102-106.
33. SIMONS, D. J., & WANG, F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science, 9, 315-320.
34. STANKIEWICZ, B. J., HUMMEL, J. E., & COOPER, E. E. (1998). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 732-744.
35. TARR, M. J., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions of by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
36. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
37. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1991). Orientation-dependent mechanisms in shape recognition: Further issues. Psychological Science, 2, 207-209.
38. ULLMAN, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
39. ULLMAN, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. WANG. F., & SIMONS, D. J. (1999). Active and passive scene recognition across views. Cognition, 70, 191-210.