Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search

Klein, Raymond M.

doi:10.1038/334430a0

Cited by 587 publications

(689 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

647

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests the occurrence of Inhibition of Return (IOR, [22]) for left taboo but not for negative trials. IOR is believed to be an involuntary effect that reflects a mechanism biasing attentional scanning towards novel rather than previously inspected items: after some time, attention directed to the stimulus location is drawn back to the central location and inhibited from returning to the initial location [18,22]. This would result in increased RTs on congruent relative to other types of trials, since, solely in this situation, attention had to come back to the inhibited location.…”

Section: Taboo Sounds Elicit Ior and General Non-spatial Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When a bang makes you run away: Spatial avoidance of threatening environmental sounds

Bertels

Kolinsky

Coucke

et al. 2013

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Taboo Sounds Elicit Ior and General Non-spatial Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When a bang makes you run away: Spatial avoidance of threatening environmental sounds

Bertels

Kolinsky

Coucke

et al. 2013

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When asked to respond to a subsequent stimulus at the same or at a different location, observers are slower to respond at the previously attended location -as if they were inhibited in their effort to get attention back to that object. Klein [38] found IOR at distractor locations in a visual search task and argued that IOR made visual search more efficient. There has been some controversy about this finding [39] but in the last few years it has become fairly clear that IOR can be seen in search paradigms [40,41].…”

Section: Trends In Cognitive Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search

Wolfe

2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

244

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we find a target item in a visual world filled with distractors? A quarter of a century ago, in her influential 'Feature Integration Theory (FIT)', Treisman proposed a two-stage solution to the problem of visual search: a preattentive stage that could process a limited number of basic features in parallel and an attentive stage that could perform more complex acts of recognition, one object at a time. The theory posed a series of problems. What is the nature of that preattentive stage? How do serial and parallel processes interact? How does a search unfold over time? Recent work has shed new light on these issues.Visual search is one of those things we do all day, every day, from finding milk in the refrigerator to locating our car in the car-park. We pay others to do it at airport security checks and in radiology laboratories and, in the past quarter of a century, we have done a great deal of it in our research laboratories. Laboratory search tasks ask the observer to find and/or identify a target item among some number of distractor items. The core empirical fact that needs explanation is that some search tasks are easy and others are difficult (see Fig. 1). We assume that, if we could successfully describe the rules that govern human search behavior, we would be able to improve performance in critical applied search tasks and to offer suggestions to those trying to build machines that might do our search tasks for us. Visual search is also an experimentally tractable way to study selective attention, and it is increasingly clear that any useful theory of visual perception will require an understanding of the role of attention.Treisman's feature integration theory Visual search and the role of attention in search has been much discussed in recent literature (see [1][2][3][4][5] for reviews). This article will concentrate on several issues growing out of Anne Treisman's seminal Feature Integration Theory (FIT) [6]. It would be a great disservice to many other researchers to label FIT as the sole 'big bang' of the visual search universe. However, it does serve well as an organizing principle for a brief review of some interesting and long-running controversies.The original FIT proposed that visual search tasks could be dichotomized into 'preattentive' and 'attentive' categories. Preattentive processing was held to occur in parallel across most or all of the visual field in a single step and to be limited to a small set of basic features like color, size, motion, and orientation. Thus, you could preattentively find a red item among green. Operationally, preattentive search for a target defined by a single basic feature would produce reaction times (RTs) independent of the number of items in the display (set size). Thus, the slope of the function relating RT to set size would be near zero. Other tasks, like a search for a randomly oriented 'T' among 'L's could not be performed preattentively. Attentive processing was presumed to marshal the more extensive perceptual capabilities required to 'bind' features ...

show abstract

“…Alternatively, it may reflect the recruitment of attentional resources necessary to reject and ignore additional distracting information [Banich et al, 2000;Bunge et al, 2001;Lavie 2000]. One such mechanism would be "inhibition of return" (i.e., the tendency of attention to reorient more slowly to previously visited locations), applied to distractors in the search displays [Klein, 1988;Mü ller and Von Muhlenen, 2000;Shore and Klein, 2000;Takeda and Yagi, 2000]. It is interesting in this respect that Lepsien and Pollmann [2002] found virtually the same dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) areas (among other areas) to be active in conditions inducing inhibition of return.…”

Section: Prefrontal Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing new over old: An fMRI study of the preview search task

Olivers

Smith

Matthews

et al. 2004

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In visual search, observers can successfully ignore temporally separated distractors that are presented as a preview before onset of the search display. Previous behavioral studies have demonstrated the involvement of top-down selection mechanisms in preview search, biasing attention against the old set in favor of the more relevant new set. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we replicate and extend findings showing the involvement of superior and inferior parietal areas in the preview task when compared to both a relatively easy single-set search task and a more effortful full-set search task. In contrast, the effortful full-set search showed activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when compared to the single-set search, suggesting that this area is involved in rejecting additional distractors that could not be separated in time. Hum Brain Mapp 24:69 -78, 2005.

show abstract

Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search

Cited by 587 publications

References 10 publications

When a bang makes you run away: Spatial avoidance of threatening environmental sounds

When a bang makes you run away: Spatial avoidance of threatening environmental sounds

Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search

Prioritizing new over old: An fMRI study of the preview search task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About