Temporal dynamics of unimodal and multimodal feature binding

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 142-152

  Zmigrod, Sharon ^a,b   Hommel, Bernhard ^a,b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; REACTION TIME; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77949332441     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.1.142     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. AKYÜREK, E. G., TOFFANIN, P., & HOMMEL, B. (2008). Adaptive control of event integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 569-577. doi: 10.1037/0096 -1523.34.3.569
2. ALLPORT, D. A., TIPPER, S. P., & CHMIEL, N. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and postcategorical filtering. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention & performance XI (pp. 107-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. ALVAREZ, G. A., & THOMPSON, T. W. (2009). Overwriting and rebinding: Why feature-switch detecting tasks underestimate the binding capacity of visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 17, 141-159. doi:10.1080/13506280802265496
4. BERTELSON, P. (1963). S-R relationships and reaction times to new versus repeated signals in a serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 478-484.
5. BERTELSON, P., VROOMEN, J., DE GELDER, B., & DRIVER, J. (2000). The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of deliberate visual attention. Perception A Psychophysics, 62, 321-332.
6. BURKE, L. (1952). On the tunnel effect Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 121-138.
7. COLZATO, L. S., RAFFONE, A., & HOMMEL, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception A Performance, 32, 705-716. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.705
8. DESCHEPPER, B., & TREISMAN, A. [M.] ( 1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 27-47.
9. DYSON, B. J., & QUINLAN, P. T. (2004). Stimulus processing constraints in audition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 1117-1131. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.6.1117
10. EINHORN, H. J., & HOGARTH, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
11. GAO, T., & SCHOLL, B. J. (in press). Are objects required for object-files? Roles of segmentation and spatiotemporal continuity in computing object persistence. Visual Cognition. doi:10.1080/13506280802614966
12. GOLDSTEIN, E. B. (2007). Sensation and perception (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
13. GORDON, R. D., & IRWIN, D. E (2000). The role of physical and conceptual properties in preserving object continuity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 26, 136-150.
14. GRUBER, H. E., FINK, C. D., & DAMM, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 89-93.
15. HALL, M. D., PASTORE, R. E., ACKER, B. E., & HUANG, W. (2000). Evidence for auditory feature integration with spatially distributed items. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1243-1257.
16. HOMMEL, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176-186. doi:10.1007/BF00425832
17. HOMMEL, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216. doi:10.1080/713756773
18. HOMMEL, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500. doi:10.1016/j .tics.2004.08.007
19. HOMMEL, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &A Performance, 31, 1067-1082. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1067
20. HOMMEL, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice. Psychological Research, 71, 42-63. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0035-l
21. HOMMEL, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512-526. doi:10.1007/s00426 -009-0234-242
22. HOMMEL, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In B. J. Bruya (Ed), Effortless attention: A new perspective In the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 121-140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. HOMMEL, B., & COLZATO, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483-521. doi:10.1080/13506280344000400
24. HOMMEL, B., & COLZATO, L. S. (2009). When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration. Visual Cognition, 17, 120-140. doi: 10.1080/ 13506280802349787
25. HOMMEL, B., MEMELINK, J., ZMIGROD, S., & COLZATO, L. S. (2009). How Information of relevant dimension controls the creation and retrieval of feature-response binding. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26. HÖTTING, K., & RÖDER, B. (2004). Hearing cheats touch, but less in congenitally blind than in sighted individuals. Psychological Science, 15, 60-64.
27. HYUN, J.-S., WOODMAN, G. F., & LUCK, S. J. (2009). The role of attention in the binding of surface features to locations. Visual Cognition, 17, 10-24. doi:10.1080/13506280802113894
28. KAHNEMAN, D., TREISMAN, A. [M.], & GIBBS, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
29. LOGAN, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
30. LUCK, S. J., & HILLYARD, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1000-1014.
31. LUCK, S. J., & HILLYARD, S. A. (1995). The role of attention in feature detection and conjunction discrimination: An electrophysiological analysis. International Journal of Neuroscience, 80, 281-297.
32. MASSARO, D. W. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. MCGURK, H., & MACDONALD, J. ( 1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
34. MITROFF, S. R, & ALVAREZ, G. A. (2007). Space and time, not surface features, guide object persistence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1199-1204.
35. MITROFF, S. R., ARITA, J. T., & FLECK, M. S. (2009). Staying in bounds: Contextual constraints on object-file coherence. Visual Cognition, 17, 195-211. doi:10.1080/13506280802103457
36. 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.
37. MONDOR, T. A., HURLBURT, J., & THORNE, L. (2003). Categorizing sounds by pitch: Effects of stimulus similarity and response repetition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 107-114.
38. MORDKOFF, J. T., & HALTERMAN, R. (2008). Feature integration without visual attention: Evidence from the correlated flankers task. Psychonomic Bulletin A Review, 15, 385-389. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.2 .385
39. NOLES, N. S., SCHOLL, B. J., & MITROFF, S. R. (2005). The persistence of object file representations. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 324-334.
40. PRATT, J., & HOMMEL, B. (2003). Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 835-845. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.835
41. REED, P. (1992). Effect of a signalled delay between an action and outcome on human judgement of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81-100.
42. REED, P. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 92-102.
43. SAIKI, J. (2009). Functional roles of memory for feature-location binding in event perception: Investigation with spatiotemporal visual search. Visual Cognition, 17, 212-231. doi:10.1080/13506280802280230
44. SHAMS, L., KAMITANI, Y., & SHIMOJO, S. (2000). Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788.
45. TAKEGATA, R., BRATTICO, E., TERVANIEMI, M., VARYAGINA, O., NÄÄTÄNEN, R., & WINKLER, I. (2005). Preattentive representation of feature conjunctions for concurrent spatially distributed auditory objects. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 169-179. doi:10.1016/j .cogbrainres.2005.05.006
46. TALSMA, D., & WOLDORFF, M. G. (2005). Selective attention and multisensory integration: Multiple phases of effects on the evoked brain activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1098-1114.
47. TREISMAN, A. M., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
48. TREISMAN, A. [M.], & SATO, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception A Performance, 16, 459-478.
49. VROOMEN, J., BERTELSON, P., & DE GELDER, B. (2001). The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of automatic visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 651-659.
50. VROOMEN, J., & DE GELDER, B. (2004). Temporal ventriloquism: Sound modulates the flash-lag effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 513-518.
51. WESSINGER, C. M., VANMETER, J., TIAN, B., VAN LARE, J., PEKAR, J., & RAUSCHECKER, J. P. (2001). Hierarchical organization of the human auditory cortex revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 1-7.
52. YI, D.-J., TURK-BROWNE, N. B., FLOMBAUM, J. I., KIM, M.-S., 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. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802525105
53. ZEKI, S., & BARTELS, A. (1999). Toward a theory of visual consciousness. Consciousness & Cognition, 8, 225-259.
54. ZMIGROD, S., & HOMMEL, B. (2009). Auditory event files: integrating auditory perception and action planning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 352-362. doi:10.3758/APP.71.2.352
55. ZMIGROD, S., SPAPÉ, M., & HOMMEL, B. (2009). Intermodal event files: Integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action. Psychological Research, 73, 674-684. doi:10.1007/s00426-008 -0163-165