Are objects required for object-files? Roles of segmentation and spatiotemporal continuity in computing object persistence

Visual Cognition

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 82-109

  Gao, Tao ^a   Scholl, Brian J ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Motion; Object files; Object persistence; Segmentation; Spatiotemporal continuity

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MENTAL TASK; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; OBJECT MANIPULATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; RETINA IMAGE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VELOCITY; VISION TEST; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM FUNCTION;

EID: 77449124049     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280802614966     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Avrahami, J. (1999). Objects of attention, objects of perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 61,1604-1612.
2. Barenholtz, E., & Feldman, J. (2003). Perceptual comparisons within and between object parts: Evidence for a single-object superiority effect. Vision Research, 43, 1655-1666.
3. Ben-Shahar, O., Scholl, B. J., & Zucker, S. W. (2007). Attention, segregation, and textons: Bridging the gap between object-based attention and texton-based segregation. Vision Research, 47, 845-860.
4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
5. Burt, P., & Sperling, G. (1981). Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion. Psychological Review, 88, 171-195.
6. Carey, S., & Xu, F. (2001). Infants' knowledge of objects: Beyond object-files and object tracking. Cognition, 80, 179-213.
7. Cheries, E. R., Mitroff, S. R., Wynn, K., & Scholl, B. J. (in press). Do the same principles constrain persisting object representations in infant cognition and adult perception? The cases of continuity and cohesion. In B. Hood & L. Santos (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Comtois, R. (2007). VisionShell PPC [Software]. Watertown, MA: Author.
9. Dawson, M. R. (1991). The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: Modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem. Psychological Review, 98, 569-603.
10. Driver, J., Davis, G., Russell, C., Turatto, M., & Freeman, E. (2001). Segmentation, attention, and phenomenal visual objects. Cognition, 80, 61-95.
11. Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501-517.
12. Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177.
13. Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants' choice of more: Object files vs. analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13, 150-156.
14. Feldman, J. (2007). Formation of visual "objects" in the early computation of spatial relations. Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 816-827.
15. Flombaum, J. I., Kundey, S., Santos, L. R., & Scholl, B. J. (2004). Dynamic object individuation in rhesus macaques: A study of the tunnel effect. Psychological Science, 15, 795-800.
16. Flombaum, J. I., & Scholl, B. J. (2006). A temporal same-object advantage in the tunnel effect: Facilitated change detection for persisting objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 840-853.
17. Flombaum, J. I., Scholl, B. J., & Santos, L. R. (in press). Spatiotemporal priority as a fundamental principle of object persistence. In B. Hood & L. Santos (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18. Gajewski, D. A., & Henderson, J. M. (2005). The role of saccade targeting in the transsaccadic integration of object types and tokens. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 820-830.
19. Gao, T., Shen, M., & Dong, Y. (2008). What counts as an object (file)? Grouping cues and object persistence. Manuscript in preparation.
20. Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (1996). What's in an object file? Evidence from priming studies. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 1260-1277.
21. Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (2000). The role of physical and conceptual properties in preserving object continuity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 136-150.
22. Gordon, R. D., Vollmer, S. D., & Frankl, M. L. (2008). Object continuity and the transsaccadic representation of form. Perception and Psychophysics, 70, 667-679.
23. Henderson, J. M. (1994). Two representational systems in dynamic visual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 410-426.
24. Henderson, J. M., & Anes, M. D. (1994). Roles of object file review and type priming in visual identification within and across eye fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 826-839.
25. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29-61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
27. Kolers, P. A. (1964). The illusion of movement. The Scientific American, 211, 98-106.
28. Kruschke, J. K., & Fragassi, M. M. (1996). The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 441-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29. Marino, A. C., & Scholl, B. J. (2005). The role of closure in defining the "objects" of object- based attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 1140-1149.
30. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.
31. Michotte, A., Thinès, G., & Crabbé, G. (1964). Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives. In Studia Psychologica. Louvain: Publications Universitaires. Reprinted and translated 1991 as: A. Michotte, G., Thinès, & G. Crabbé. Amodal completion of perceptual structures. In G. Thines, A. Costall, & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Michotte's experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 140-167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Mitroff, S. R., & Alvarez, G. A. (2007). Space and time, not surface features, underlie object persistence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1199-1204.
33. Mitroff, S. R., Arita, J. T., & Fleck, M. S. (2009). Staying in bounds: Contextual constraints on object file coherence. Visual Cognition, 17, 195-211.
34. Mitroff, S. R., Scholl, B. J., & Noles, N. (2007). Object files can be purely episodic. Perception, 36,1730-1735.
35. Mitroff, S. R., Scholl, B. J., & Wynn, K. (2004). Divide and conquer: How object files adapt when a persisting object splits into two. Psychological Science, 15, 420-425
36. Mitroff, S. R., Scholl, B. J., & Wynn, K. (2005). The relationship between object files and conscious perception. Cognition, 96, 67-92.
37. Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1171-1180.
38. Muller, H., Elliott, M., Herrmann, C., & Mecklinger, A. (2001). Neural binding of space and time: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 8, 273-285.
39. Navon, D. (1976). Irrelevance of figural identity for resolving ambiguities in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 130-138.
40. Noles, N., Scholl, B. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2005). The persistence of object-file representations. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 324-334.
41. Peissig, J. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2007). Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 75-96.
42. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
43. Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179-197.
44. Richardson, D. C., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2004). Multi-modal events and moving locations: Eye movements of adults and 6-month-olds reveal dynamic spatial indexing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 46-62.
45. Saiki, J. (2000). Occlusion, symmetry, and object-based attention: Comment on Behrmann, Zemel, & Mozer (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 424-433.
46. Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80, 1-46.
47. Scholl, B. J., & Leslie, A. M. (1999). Explaining the infant's object concept: Beyond the perception/cognition dichotomy. In E. Lepore & Z. Pylyshyn (Eds.), What is cognitive science? (pp. 26-73). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
48. Scholl, B. J., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Tracking multiple items through occlusion: Clues to visual objecthood. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 259-290.
49. Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Feldman, J. (2001). What is a visual object? Evidence from target merging in multi-element tracking. Cognition, 80, 159-177.
50. Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Franconeri, S. (1999). When are spatiotemporal and featural properties encoded as a result of attentional allocation? [Abstract]. Investigative Ophthal- mology and Visual Science, 40, S797.
51. VanMarle, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2003). Attentive tracking of objects vs. substances. Psychological Science, 14, 498-504.
52. Watson, S., & Kramer, A. (1999). Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 31-49.
53. Yi, D.-J., Turk-Browne, N. B., Flombaum, J. I., Kim, M., Scholl, B. J., & Chun, M. M. (2008). Spatiotemporal object continuity in human ventral visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 8840-8845.