The mechanisms of feature inheritance as predicted by a systems-level model of visual attention and decision making

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 3, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 111-123

  Hamker, Fred ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attention; Computational model; Decision making; Feature inheritance; Feedback; VSTM

Indexed keywords

EID: 35148819428     PISSN: 18951171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0019-y     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Hamker, F. H. (2005c). A computational model of visual stability and change detection during eye movements in real world scenes. Visual Cognition, 12, 1161-1176.
2. Hamker, F. H. (2006). Modeling feature-based attention as an active top-down inference process. BioSystems, 86, 91-99. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 16843589&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
3. Hamker, F. H., & Zirnsak, M. (2006). V4 receptive field dynamics as predicted by a systems-level model of visual attention using feedback from the frontal eye field. Neural Networks, 19, 1371-1382.
4. Breitmeyer, B. G. (1984). Visual masking: an integrative approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ögmen, H. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: a comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1572-1595. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 11140180&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
6. Coltheart, M. (1983). Iconic memory. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 302, 283-294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView& TermToSearch=6137847&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
7. Dayan, P., & Abbott, L. (2001). Theoretical neuroscience, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Desimone R, & Duncan J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 7605061&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
9. Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant physical processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt= Abstract&list-uids=11142864 [PubMed]
10. Enns, J. T. (2002). Visual binding in the standing wave illusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 489-496. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 12412888&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
11. Enns J. T., & Oriet C. (2007). Visual similarity in masking and priming: The critical role of task relevance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 211-240. http://www.ac-psych.org/index.php?id=2&rok=2007&issue=1- 2#article-50
12. Grossberg, S. (1980). How does the brain build a cognitive code? Psychological Review, 87, 1-51. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7375607&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
13. Hamker, F. H. (2003). The reentry hypothesis: linking eye movements to visual perception. Journal of Vision, 11, 808-816. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 14765963&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
14. Hamker, F. H. (2004). A dynamic model of how feature cues guide spatial attention. Vision Research, 44, 501-521. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14680776& ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel. Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
15. Hamker, F. H. (2005a). The reentry hypothesis: The putative interaction of the frontal eye field, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and areas V4, IT for attention and eye movement. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 431-447. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 15749987&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
16. Hamker, F. H. (2005b). The emergence of attention by population-based inference and its role in distributed processing and cognitive control of vision. Journal for Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 100, 64-106.
17. Herzog, M. H., & Koch, C. (2001). Seeing properties of an invisble object: Feature inheritance and shine-through. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 4271-4275. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11274451&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
18. Herzog, M. H., Ernst, U. A., Etzold, A., & Eurich, C. W. (2003). Local interactions in neural networks explain global effects in Gestalt processing and masking. Neural Computation, 15, 2091-2113. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 12959667&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
19. Hupé, J. M., James, A. C., Girard, P., Lomber, S. G., Payne, B. R., & Bullier, J. (2001). Feedback connections act on the early part of the responses in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85, 134-145. ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView& TermToSearch=11152714&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
20. Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: a neurobiological approach. Englewood, Colorado: Roberts and Company Publishers.
21. Lammé, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 571-579. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11074267&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
22. Lee, T. S., & Mumford, D. (2003). Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision, 20, 1434-1448. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12868647&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
23. Lleras, A., Rensink, R. A., & Enns, J. T. (2005). Rapid resumption of interrupted visual search. New insights on the interaction between vision and memory. Psychological Science, 16, 684-688. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16137253& ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel. Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
24. Ma, W. J., Hamker, F. H., & Koch, C. (2006). Neural mechanisms underlying temporal aspects of conscious visual perception. In H. Ögmen & B. G. Breitmeyer (Eds.), The first half second: The microgenesis and temporal dynamics of unconscious and conscious visual processing. (p. 275-294). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Mazurek, M. E., Roitman, J. D., Ditterich, J., & Shadlen, M. N. (2003). A role for neural integrators in perceptual decision making. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 1257-69. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14576217&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
27. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
28. Mumford, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II. The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biological Cybernetics, 66, 241-251. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView& TermToSearch=1540675&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
29. Ögmen, H., Breitmeyer, B. G., & Melvin, R. (2003). The what and where in visual masking. Vision Research, 43, 1337-1350. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 12742104&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
30. Olshausen, B. A., & Field, D. J. (1997) Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: a strategy employed by V1? Vision Research, 37, 3311-3325. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9425546&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
31. Otto, T. U., Ögmen, H., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). The flight path of the phoenix - the visible trace of invisible elements in human vision. Journal of Vision, 6, 1079-1086. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17132079&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
32. Rao, R. P. (1999). An optimal estimation approach to visual perception and learning. Vision Research, 39, 1963-1989. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10343783& ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel. Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
33. Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333-367. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15065913&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
34. Rockland, K. S., Saleem, K. S., & Tanaka, K. (1994). Divergent feedback connections from areas V4 and TEO in the macaque. Visual Neuroscience, 11, 579-600. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=8038130&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
35. Rousselet, G. A., Thorpe, S. J., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2004). How parallel is visual processing in the ventral pathway? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 363-370. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db= pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15335463&ordinalpos= 1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
36. Sharikadze, M., Fahle, M., & Herzog, M. H. (2005). Attention and feature integration in the feature inheritance effect. Vision Research, 45, 2608-2619. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15993459&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
37. Scharlau, I., & Ansorge, U. (2003). Direct parameter specification of an attention shift: evidence from perceptual latency priming. Vision Research, 43, 1351-1363. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12742105&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
38. Scharlau, I. (2007). Temporal processes in prime-mask interaction: Assessing perceptual consequences of masked information. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 241-255. http://www.ac-psych.org/index.php?id=2&rok= 2007&issue=1-2#article-52
39. Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 161-168. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 15036882&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
40. Smith, P. L., Ratcliff, R., & Wolfgang, B. J. (2004). Attention orienting and the time course of perceptual decisions: response time distributions with masked and unmasked displays. Vision Research, 44, 1297-1320. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15066392&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
41. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11488378&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
42. Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 6275-6280. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd= ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12719543&ordinalpos=1&itool= EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]
43. Zhaoping L. (2003). V1 mechanisms and some figure-ground and border effects. Journal of Physiology, Paris, 97, 503-515 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch= 15242660&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed. Pubmed-ResultsPanel.Pubmed-RVLinkOut [PubMed]