Frames of reference in unilateral neglect and visual perception: A computational perspective

Psychological Review

Volumn 109, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 156-185

  Mozer, Michael C ^a  

^a UCB 450   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION DISORDER; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RECOGNITION;

HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL DISORDERS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 85047669799     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.156     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Arguin, M., & Bub, D. N. (1993). Evidence for an independent stimulus-centered spatial reference frame from a case of visual hemineglect. Cortex, 29, 349-357.
3. Attneave, F. (1968). Triangles as ambiguous figures. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 447-453.
4. Behrmann, M., & Moscovitch, M. (1994). Object-centered neglect in patients with unilateral neglect: Effects of left-right coordinates of objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 1-16.
5. Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). Object-based attentional mechanisms: Evidence from patients with unilateral neglect. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. 15. Conscious and nonconscious processing and cognitive functioning (pp. 351-375). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1999). Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 83-101.
7. Behrmann, M., Zemel, R. S., & Mozer, M. C. (1998). Object-based attention and occlusion: Evidence from normal subjects and a computational model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1011-1036.
8. Beymer, D. J. (1993). Face recognition under varying pose (AI Memo No. 1461). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
9. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
10. Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (1999). One shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885-2899.
11. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
12. 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 and Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
13. Biederman, I., & Kalocsai, P. (1997). Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Biological Sciences), 352, 1203-1220.
14. Bülthoff, H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
15. Bülthoff, H. H., Edelman, S. Y., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cerebral Cortex, 5, 247-260.
16. Buxbaum, L. J. (1995, February). Visual attention to objects and space: Object-based neglect or location focus? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Seattle, WA.
17. Buxbaum, L. J., Coslett, H. B., Montgomery, M. W., & Farah, M. J. (1996). Mental rotation may underlie apparent object-based neglect. Neuropsychologia, 34, 113-126.
18. Calvanio, R., Petrone, P. N., & Levine, D. N. (1987). Left visual spatial neglect is both environment-centered and body-centered. Neurology, 37, 1179-1183.
19. Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990a). Levels of representation, coordinate frames, and unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 319-445.
20. Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990b). Spatial representation of words in the brain implied by studies of a unilateral neglect patient. Nature, 346, 267-269.
21. Deneve, S., & Pouget, A. (1998). Neural basis of object-centered representations. In M. I. Jordan, M. J. Kearns, & S. A. Solla (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 10, pp. 24-30). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
22. Drain, M., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1997). Object-centered neglect: Do informational asymmetries play a role? Neuropsychologia, 35, 445-456.
23. Driver, J. (1999). Egocentric and object-based visual neglect. In N. Burgess, K. J. Jeffery, & J. O'Keefe (Eds.), The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition (pp. 67-89). New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1999). [Study of neglect with respect to a principal vertical axis]. Unpublished raw data.
25. Driver, J., Baylis, G. C., Goodrich, S. J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Axis-based neglect of visual shapes. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1353-1365.
26. Driver, J., & Halligan, P. W. (1991). Can visual neglect operate in object-centered coordinates? An affirmative single-case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 475-496.
27. Driver, J., & Pouget, A. (2000). Object-centered visual neglect, or relative egocentric neglect? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 542-545.
28. Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501-517.
29. Edelman, S. (1997). Computational theories of object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 296-304.
30. Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
31. Edelman, S., & Duvdevani-Bar, S. (1997). A model of visual recognition and categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Biological Sciences), 352, 1191-1202.
32. Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177.
33. Ellis, R., Allport, D. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Collis, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41, 775-796.
34. Farah, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
35. Farah, M. J., Brunn, J. L., Wong, A. B., Wallace, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1990). Frames of reference for allocating attention to space: Evidence from the neglect syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 28, 335-347.
36. Farah, M. J., & Buxbaum, L. J. (1997). Object-based attention in visual neglect: Conceptual and empirical distinctions. In P. Thier & H.-O. Karnath (Eds.), Parietal lobe contributions to orientation in 3D space (pp. 385-400). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
37. Fukushima, K., & Miyake, S. (1982). Neocognitron: A new algorithm for pattern recognition tolerant of deformations and shifts in position. Pattern Recognition, 15, 455-469.
38. Grabowecky, M., Robertson, L. C., & Treisman, A. (1993). Preattentive processes guide visual search: Evidence from patients with unilateral visual neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 288-302.
39. Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E., & Ross, W. D. (1994). A neural theory of attentive visual search: Interactions of boundary, surface, spatial, and object representations. Psychological Review, 101, 470-489.
40. Grossberg, S., & Raizada, R. D. S. (2000). Contrast-sensitive perceptual grouping and object-based attention in the laminar circuits of primary visual cortex. Vision Research, 40, 1413-1432.
41. Halligan, P. W., & Marshall, J. C. (1993). The history and clinical presentation of visual neglect. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 1-26). London: Erlbaum.
42. Halligan, P. W., & Marshall, J. C. (1994). Focal and global attention modulate the expression of visuo-spatial neglect: A case study. Neuropsychologia, 32, 13-21.
43. Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Valenstein, E. (1993). Neglect and related disorders. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (3rd ed., pp. 279-336). New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Spatially specific deficits in processing graphemic representations in reading and writing. Brain and Language, 48, 263-308.
45. Hillis, A. E., Mordkoff, J. T., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Mechanisms of spatial attention revealed by hemispatial neglect. Cortex, 35, 433-442.
46. Hinton, G. E. (1981). A parallel computation that assigns canonical object-based frames of reference. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 683-685). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
47. Hinton, G. E., & Lang, K. (1985). Shape recognition and illusory conjunctions. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 252-259). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
48. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1979, September). Brain mechanisms of vision. Scientific American, 241, 150-162.
49. Hummel, J. E. (1994). Reference frames and relations in computational models of object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 111-116.
50. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
51. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. 16. Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
53. Humphreys, G. W., & Heinke, D. (1998). Representation and selection in the brain: Neuropsychological and computational constraints. Visual Cognition, 5, 9-47.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Kinsbourne, M. (1987). Mechanisms of unilateral neglect. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect (pp. 69-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
57. Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63-86). London: Erlbaum.
58. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
59. LaBerge, D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371-379.
60. Le Cun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Hendersen, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., & Jackel, L. D. (1989). Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Computation, 1, 541-551.
61. Ling, X., & Sanocki, T. (1995). Major axes as a moderately abstract model for object recognition. Psychological Science, 6, 370-375.
62. Logothetis, N. K., & Pauls, J. (1995). Psychophysical and physiological evidence for viewer-centered object representations in the primate. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 270-288.
63. Mach, E. (1959). The analysis of sensations. New York: Dover. (Orginal work published 1886)
64. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
65. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Biological Sciences), 200, 269-294.
66. Mathis, D., & Mozer, M. C. (1996). Conscious and unconscious perception: A computational theory. In G. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 324-328). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1. pp. 3-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. McGoldrick, J., Mozer, M. C., Munakata, Y., & Reed, C. (2001). Object-based representations and neglect: Tests of a computational model. Manuscript in preparation.
69. McMullen, P. A., & Farah, M. J. (1991). Viewer-centered and object-centered representations in the recognition of naturalistic line drawings. Psychological Science, 2, 275-277.
70. Mozer, M. C. (1991). The perception of multiple objects: A connectionist approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Mozer, M. C. (1999). A principle for the unsupervised hierarchical decomposition of visual scenes. In M. S. Kearns, S. A. Solla, & D. Cohn (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 11, pp. 52-58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Mozer, M. C., & Behrmann, M. (1992). Reading with attentional impairments: A brain-damaged model of neglect and attentional dyslexias. In R. G. Reilly & N. E. Sharkey (Eds.), Connectionist approaches to natural language processing (pp. 409-460). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Mozer, M. C., Halligan, P. W., & Marshall, J. C. (1997). The end of the line for a brain-damaged model of unilateral neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 171-190.
74. Mozer, M. C., & Sitton, M. (1998). Computational modeling of spatial attention. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 341-393). London: UCL Press.
75. Mozer, M. C., Zemel, R. S., Behrmann, M., & Williams, C. K. I. (1992). Learning to segment images using dynamic feature binding. Neural Computation, 4, 650-665.
76. Olshausen, B., Anderson, C. H., & van Essen, D. C. (1993). A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information. Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 4700-4719.
77. Olson, C. R., & Gettner, S. N. (1995. August 18). Object-centered directional selectivity in the macaque supplementary eye field. Science, 269, 985-988.
78. Olson, C. R., & Gettner, S. N. (1996). Brain representations of object-centered space. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 165-170.
79. O'Reilly, R. C., Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2000). Explorations in computational cognitive neuroscience: Understanding the mind by simulating the brain. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
80. Palmer, S. E. (1980). What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 285-305.
81. Pavlovskaya, M., Glass, I., Soroker, N., Blum, B., & Groswasser, Z. (1997). Coordinate frame for pattern recognition in unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 824-834.
82. Perrett, D. I., & Oram, M. W. (1998). Visual recognition based on temporal cortex cells: Viewer-centred processing of pattern configuration. Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung (C), 53, 518-541.
83. Perrett, D. I., Oram, M. W., Hietanen, J. K., & Benson, P. J. (1999). Issues of representation in object vision. In M. J. Farah & G. Ratcliff (Eds.), The neuropsychology of high-level vision (pp. 33-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
84. Pinker, S. (1984). Visual cognition: An introduction. Cognition, 18, 1-63.
85. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize 3D objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
86. Poggio, T., & Shelton, C. R. (1999). Machine learning, machine vision, and the brain. AI Magazine, 20, 37-55.
87. Pouget, A., Deneve, S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1999). Frames of reference in hemineglect: A computational approach. In J. Reggia, E. Ruppin, & D. Glanzman (Eds.), Disorders of brain, behavior, and cognition: The neurocomputational approach (pp. 81-98). New York: Elsevier.
88. Pouget, A., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1997). A new view of hemineglect based on the response properties of parietal neurons. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Series B (Biological Sciences), 352, 1449-1459.
89. Reisenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019-1025.
90. Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Drain, M., & Hardy-Morais, C. (1996). Object-centered attentional biases in the intact brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 540-550.
91. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Luckhurst, L., Burroughs, E., & Bateman, A. (1995). "Paradoxical neglect": Spatial representations, hemisphere-specific activation, and spatial cueing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 569-604.
92. Rock, I. (1997). Orientation and form. In I. Rock (Ed.), Indirect perception (pp. 133-150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
93. Sandon, P. A., & Uhr, L. M. (1988). An adaptive model for viewpoint-invariant object recognition. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 209-215). Hillsdake, NJ: Erlbaum.
94. Seibert, M., & Waxman, A. M. (1990). Learning aspect graph representations from view sequences. In D. S. Touretzky (Ed.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 2, pp. 258-265). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
95. Shillcock, R., & Cairns, P. (1995). A connectionist model of hemispheric interaction in unilateral visuospatial neglect. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 142-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
96. Sperling, G. (1970). Binocular vision: A physical and a neural theory. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 461-534.
97. Tanaka, K. (1993, October 29). Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition. Science, 262, 658-688.
98. Tanaka, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
99. Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55-82.
100. Tarr, M. J. (1999). News on views: Pandemonium revisited. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 932-935.
101. Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
102. Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey, and machine. Cognition, 69, 1-20.
103. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
104. Tarr, M. J., Williams, P., Hayward, W. G., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275-277.
105. Tipper, S. P., & Behrmann, M. (1996). Object-centered not scene-based visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1261-1278.
106. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97-159.
107. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
108. Vecera, S. P. (1993). Object knowledge influences visual image segmentation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1040-1045). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
109. Vecera, S., & Farah, M. J. (1994). Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 146-160.
110. Vetter, T., Hurlbert, A., & Poggio, T. (1995). View-based models of 3D object recognition: Invariance to imaging transformations. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 261-269.
111. Wallis, G., & Rolls, E. T. (1997). Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system. Progress in Neurobiology, 51, 167-194.
112. Weinshall, D., Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1990). A self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3D objects. In D. S. Touretzky (Ed.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 2, pp. 274-281). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
113. Zemel, R. S., Mozer, M. C., & Hinton, G. E. (1988). TRAFFIC: Object recognition using hierarchical reference frame transformations. In D. S. Touretzky (Ed.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 2, pp. 266-273). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.