Task usefulness affects perception of rivalrous images

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1886-1893

  Chopin, Adrien ^a   Mamassian, Pascal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

learning; vision; visual attention; visual search

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; EYE DOMINANCE; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; DOMINANCE, OCULAR; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650383213     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610389190     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Andrews, T.J. (2001). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 407-409.
2. Blake, R., & Logothetis, N.K. (2002). Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 13-21.
3. Brainard, D.H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
4. Brascamp, J.W., van Ee, R., Noest, A.J., Jacobs, R.H., & van den Berg, A.V. (2006). The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. Journal of Vision, 6(11), Article 8. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/6/11/8.full.
5. Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004). Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 308-313.
6. Chong, S.C., & Blake, R. (2006). Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 1794-1803.
7. Chun, M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 170-178.
8. Chun, M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28-71.
9. DuTour, É.F. (1760). Discussion d'une question d'optique [Discussion on a question of optics]. l'Académie des Sciences: Mémoires de Mathématique et de Physique Présentés par Divers Savants, 3, 514-530.
10. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 57). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
11. Ernst, M.O., & Banks, M.S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429-433.
12. Holmes, A.P., Blair, R.C., Watson, J., & Ford, I. (1996). Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 16, 7-22.
13. Hupé, J.M., & Rubin, N. (2003). The dynamics of bi-stable alternation in ambiguous motion displays: A fresh look at plaids. Vision Research, 43, 531-548.
14. Jimenez, L., & Mendez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236-259.
15. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304.
16. Kovacs, I., Papathomas, T.V., Yang, M., & Feher, A. (1996). When the brain changes its mind: Interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 93, 15508-15511.
17. Lack, L.C. (1971). The role of accommodation in the control of binocular rivalry. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 38-42.
18. Lambert, A., Naikar, N., McLachlan, K., & Aitken, V. (1999). A new component of visual orienting: Implicit effects of peripheral information and subthreshold cues on covert attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 321-340.
19. Leopold, D.A., & Logothetis, N.K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 254-264.
20. Leopold, D.A., Wilke, M., Maier, A., & Logothetis, N.K. (2002). Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 605-609.
21. Levelt, W. (1966). The alternation process in binocular rivalry. British Journal of Psychology, 57, 225-238.
22. Logothetis, N.K., Leopold, D.A., & Sheinberg, D.L. (1996). What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? Nature, 380, 621-624.
23. Maier, A., Wilke, M., Logothetis, N.K., & Leopold, D.A. (2003). Perception of temporally interleaved ambiguous patterns. Current Biology, 13, 1076-1085.
24. Maloney, L.T., Martello, M.F.D., Sahm, C., & Spillmann, L. (2005). Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 3164-3169.
25. Mamassian, P., & Goutcher, R. (2005). Temporal dynamics in bistable perception. Journal of Vision, 5(4), Article 7. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/5/4/7.full.
26. Mamassian, P., & Landy, M.S. (1998). Observer biases in the 3D interpretation of line drawings. Vision Research, 38, 2817-2832.
27. Meng, M., & Tong, F. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision, 4(7), Article 2. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/4/7/2.full.
28. Mitchell, J.F., Stoner, G.R., & Reynolds, J.H. (2004). Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature, 429, 410-413.
29. Nichols, T.E., & Holmes, A.P. (2002). Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 1-25.
30. Ooi, T.L., & He, Z.J. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: The role of attention. Perception, 28, 551-574.
31. Pelli, D.G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
32. Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Ogden, W.C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
34. Schyns, P.G., & Oliva, A. (1999). Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations. Cognition, 69, 243-265.
35. Sundareswara, R., & Schrater, P.R. (2008). Perceptual multistability predicted by search model for Bayesian decisions. Journal of Vision, 8(5), Article 12. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/5/12.full.
36. Suzuki, S., & Grabowecky, M. (2002a). Evidence for perceptual trapping and adaptation in multistable binocular rivalry. Neuron, 36, 143-157.
37. Suzuki, S., & Grabowecky, M. (2002b). Overlapping features can be parsed on the basis of rapid temporal cues that produce stable emergent percepts. Vision Research, 42, 2669-2692.
38. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
39. van Ee, R., van Dam, L.C.J., & Brouwer, G.J. (2005). Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability. Vision Research, 45, 41-55.
40. Walker, P. (1978). Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 376-389.