Masking unveils pre-amodal completion representation in visual search

Rauschenberger, Robert; Yantis, Steven

doi:10.1038/35066577

Cited by 97 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Object files have often been thought of in especially transient terms, as operating only on the scale of milliseconds that has been characteristic of previous object reviewing studies. However, whereas many aspects of lower level visual processing do in fact operate on a scale of milliseconds-including the "microgenesis" of individual static percepts such as amodal completion (e.g., Rauschenberger & Yantis, 2001)-our everyday conscious perception of the world unfolds and changes on the scale of several seconds. We are not typically aware of the moment-by-moment details of our visual world.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The persistence of object file representations

Noles

Scholl

Mitroff

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coherent visual experience of dynamic scenes requires not only that the visual system segment scenes into component objects but that these object representations persist, so that an object can be identified as the same object from an earlier time. Object files (OFs) are visual representations thought to mediate such abilities: OFs lie between lower level sensory processing and higher level recognition, and they track salient objects over time and motion. OFs have traditionally been studied via objectspecific preview benefits (OSPBs), in which discriminations of an object's features are speeded when an earlier preview of those features occurred on the same object, as opposed to on a different object, beyond general displaywide priming. Despite its popularity, many fundamental aspects of the OF framework remain unexplored. For example, although OFs are thought to be involved primarily in online visual processing, we do not know how long such representations persist; previous studies found OSPBs for up to 1,500msec but did not test for longer durations. We explored this issue using a modified object reviewing paradigm and found that robust OSPBs persist for more than five times longer than has previously been tested-for at least 8 sec, and possibly for much longer. Object files may be the "glue" that makes visual experience coherent not just in online moment-by-moment processing, but on the scale of seconds that characterizes our everyday perceptual experiences. These findings also bear on research in infant cognition, where OFs are thought to explain infants' abilities to track and enumerate small sets of objects over longer durations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The persistence of object file representations

Noles

Scholl

Mitroff

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Then Rauschenberger and Yantis (2001), in a paper in Nature, claimed that they had found evidence for this mosaic stage. But only three years later Rauschenberger and colleagues (Rauschenberger, Peterson, Mosca, & Bruno, 2004) retracted that conclusion, writing, "Our results are quite incompatible with the two-stage model" (page 354).…”

Section: Sensations Overridden By the Percept?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical Approaches to Lightness and Perception

Gilchrist

2015

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Theories of lightness, like theories of perception in general, can be categorized as highlevel, low-level, and mid-level. However, I will argue that in practice there are only two categories: one-stage mid-level theories, and two-stage low-high theories. Low-level theories usually include a high-level component and high-level theories include a low-level component, the distinction being mainly one of emphasis. Two-stage theories are the modern incarnation of the persistent sensation/ perception dichotomy according to which an early experience of raw sensations, faithful to the proximal stimulus, is followed by a process of cognitive interpretation, typically based on past experience. Like phlogiston or the ether, raw sensations seem like they must exist, but there is no clear evidence for them. Proximal stimulus matches are postperceptual, not read off an early sensory stage. Visual angle matches are achieved by a cognitive process of flattening the visual world. Likewise, brightness (luminance) matches depend on a cognitive process of flattening the illumination. Brightness is not the input to lightness; brightness is slower than lightness. Evidence for an early (< 200 ms) mosaic stage is shaky. As for cognitive influences on perception, the many claims tend to fall apart upon close inspection of the evidence. Much of the evidence for the current revival of the 'new look' is probably better explained by (1) a natural desire of (some) subjects to please the experimenter, and (2) the ease of intuiting an experimental hypothesis. High-level theories of lightness are overkill. The visual system does not need to know the amount of illumination, merely which surfaces share the same illumination. This leaves mid-level theories derived from the gestalt school. Here the debate seems to revolve around layer models and framework models. Layer models fit our visual experience of a pattern of illumination projected onto a pattern of reflectance, while framework models provide a better account of illusions and failures of constancy. Evidence for and against these approaches is reviewed.

show abstract

“…Baselines for almost all conditions (including those where shadow interpretation occurs) are around 600 ms (Appendix), consistent with the proposal that this process is rapid. Timing manipulations such as those done on rapid completion (Rauschenberger and Yantis 2001) would likely affect rapid shadow interpretation in a similar way.…”

Section: Constraints On Rapid Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(9) 8.2 Locus of processing The existence of a process that impedes rapid access to low-level features is also found in several other aspects of rapid vision, such as rapid grouping, in which the formation of a group impedes access to constituents that support rapid search on their own (Rensink and Enns 1995), and rapid completion, in which completion results in a loss of distinctive features that would otherwise support rapid search (Rensink and Enns 1998). This latter process requires approximately 250 ms (Rauschenberger and Yantis 2001). This suggests that it is the result of a secondary stage of rapid processing that elaborates a primary stage based on an initial set of simple measurements (Rensink 2000).…”

Section: Constraints On Rapid Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Cast Shadows on Visual Search

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Studies of human vision have long distinguished between operations carried out rapidly and in parallel across the visual field, and operations carried out sequentially on an item-by-item basis (Al-Haytham c 1000/1989; Helmholtz 1867/1962; Neisser 1967). In more recent treatments, this division usually takes the form of an early stage that rapidly extracts features from the incoming image, and a subsequent attentional stage that assembles these features into more coherent descriptions of the external world (eg Beck 1982; Julesz 1984). Although early-level features were originally believed to describe relatively simple aspects of the image [such as color and two-dimensional (2-D) orientation in the plane], later work showed they can also describe more complex aspects of the threedimensional (3-D) scene, such as surface convexity (Kleffner and Ramachandran 1992; Ramachandran 1988), direction of lighting (Enns and Rensink 1990), and occluded surface structure (Nakayama et al 1995; Rensink and Enns 1998). These results suggest that early vision attempts to extract as much scene structure as possible, and that even when a complete and accurate interpretation is not possible, it is still worth forming a`quick and dirty' initial estimate (Rensink and Enns 1995, 1998). The issue examined here is whether cast shadows are also handled by such rapid processes at early levels. (1) Shadows do not correspond to structure in the world itself, arising instead from interactions between the world and the sources that illuminate it (see eg Baxandall 1995). Thus, although shadows can carry information about the scene (eg that a post is upright), there is little need to represent the shadows themselves. Indeed, if the lighting-dependent border of a shadow were mistaken for the lightingindependent border of an object, serious errors in scene interpretation could arise (

show abstract

Masking unveils pre-amodal completion representation in visual search

Cited by 97 publications

References 16 publications

The persistence of object file representations

The persistence of object file representations

Theoretical Approaches to Lightness and Perception

The Influence of Cast Shadows on Visual Search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About