Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search

Cave, Kyle R.; Wolfe, Jeremy M.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90017-x

Cited by 555 publications

(584 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

535

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to this perspective, visual selection may be either stimulus or goal driven as a product of response time. As in most current models of visual selection (Cave & Wolfe, 1990;Folk et al, 1992;Itti & Koch, 2000;Koch & Ullman, 1985;Theeuwes, 1991Theeuwes, , 1992Theeuwes, , 1994Wolfe, 1994;Wolfe, Cave, & Franzel, 1989), it is assumed that visual selection is the result of the output provided by some common salience map that combines input from different modules. The pattern of activity in this map may give rise to a single location that is most likely to be selected (Itti & Koch, 2000;Koch & Ullman, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in the guided search model (Cave & Wolfe, 1990;Wolfe, 1994;Wolfe et al, 1989), it is explicitly assumed that stimulus-driven and goal-driven activation sum up in a common location-specific activation map. The activation map is assumed to contain no information about the source (i.e., what) of activation but only about its location (i.e., where) in the visual field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.

Zoest¹,

Donk²,

Theeuwes³

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

262

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments were conducted to investigate the role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic eye movements. Participants were required to make a speeded saccade toward a predefined target presented concurrently with multiple nontargets and possibly 1 distractor. Target and distractor were either equally salient (Experiments 1 and 2) or not (Experiments 3 and 4). The results uniformly demonstrated that fast eye movements were completely stimulus driven, whereas slower eye movements were goal driven. These results are in line with neither a bottom-up account nor a top-down notion of visual selection. Instead, they indicate that visual selection is the outcome of 2 independent processes, one stimulus driven and the other goal driven, operating in different time windows.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.

Zoest¹,

Donk²,

Theeuwes³

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

262

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps CTVA will have to be supplemented by some other mechanism that segregates dissimilar items and isolates dissimilar targets (cf. Cave & Wolfe, 1990;Humphreys & Miiller, 1993 ).…”

Section: Proximity and Grouping Effects In Partial Report Several In-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Logan

1996

Psychological Review

278

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a theory that inte~ates space-based and object-based approaches to visual attention. The theory puts together M. P. van Oeffelen and P. G. Vos's ( 1982Vos's ( , 1983) COntour DEtector (CODE) theory of perceptual grouping by proximity with C. Bundesen's (1990) theory of visual attention (TVA). CODE provides input to TVA, accounting for spatially based between-object selection, and TVA converts the input to output, accounting for feature-and category-based withinobject selection. CODE clusters nearby items into perceptual groups that are both perceptual objects and regions of space, thereby integrating object-based and space-based approaches to attention. The combined theory provides a quantitative account of the effects of grouping by proximity and dis~nce between items on reaction time and accuracy data in 7 empirical situations that shaped the current literature on visual spatial attention.For the last decade the attention literature has been embroiled in a debate over the nature of visual spatial attention that focuses on the "thing" that attention selects (e.g., Baylis & Driver, 1993;Driver & Baylis, 1989;Duncan, 1984;Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994;Kramer & Jacobson, 1991;Vecera & Farah, 1994). Advocates of space-based attention argue that attention selects regions of space independent of the objects they contain. Attention is like a spotlight illuminating a region of space. Objects that fall within the beam are processed; objects that fall outside it are not (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974;Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Posner, 1980;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Gormican, 1988). Advocates of object-based attention argue that attention selects objects rather than regions of space. Selection is spatial because objects necessarily occupy regions of space, but objects rather than the regions themselves are the things that are selected (Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kahneman & Treisman, 1984;Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1992;Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Objectbased theories assume that attention only selects regions of space that are occupied by objects, whereas space-based theories assume that attention can select empty regions of space (cf. Yantis, 1992).The purpose of this article is to propose a theory of visual spatial attention that integrates space-based and object-based views. The theory takes a computational approach to the problem, characterizing attention in terms of representations and the processes that operate on them. It differs from most ap- proaches to attention by being concerned with the representation of space and the representation of objects, incorporating a theory of perceptual organization and a theory of selection. The resolution of the controversy derives from the theory's assumptions about representation.The article begins by describing five important questions that face any theory of visual spatial attention. The answers proposed by the new theory are presented by way of describing the theory. The theory is applied to seven important paradigms that shaped the cur...

show abstract

“…This difference may be due to different levels of noise across the subjects (Cave and Wolfe, 1990) or to a difference in stimulus salience between the tasks (Wolfe et al, 1989) . Yet, as our simulations show, the usefulness of top-down information seems to be the most obvious explanatory factor for the discrepancy between the different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, when the model has been trained on only triple conjunction search with the target different in one feature, its performance on this search task is better than humans, but it is worse on all other search tasks. This difference in performances is due to the different bottom-up activation of the targets in the feature and conjunction searches (Cave and Wolfe, 1990). After training, we determine the slopes of the reaction time as a function of frame size.…”

Section: Figure 5 Search Times For Known and Unknown Conjunction Tarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task-Dependent Learning of Attention

Laar¹,

Heskes²,

Gielen³

1997

Neural Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search

Cited by 555 publications

References 22 publications

The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.

The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Task-Dependent Learning of Attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About