How the Deployment of Attention Determines What We See

Overview

Journal Vis cogn

Specialties Neurology
Psychology

Date 2007 Mar 28

PMID 17387378

Citations 97

Authors

Anne Treisman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Attention is a tool to adapt what we see to our current needs. It can be focused narrowly on a single object or spread over several or distributed over the scene as a whole. In addition to increasing or decreasing the number of attended objects, these different deployments may have different effects on what we see. This chapter describes some research both on focused attention and its use in binding features, and on distributed attention and the kinds of information we gain and lose with the attention window opened wide. One kind of processing that we suggest occurs automatically with distributed attention results in a statistical description of sets of similar objects. Another gives the gist of the scene, which may be inferred from sets of features registered in parallel. Flexible use of these different modes of attention allows us to reconcile sharp capacity limits with a richer understanding of the visual scene.

Citing Articles

Implications of cerebral/cortical visual impairment on life and learning: insights and strategies from lived experiences.

Bennett R, Tibaudo M, Mazel E, Y N Front Hum Neurosci. 2025; 18():1496153.

PMID: 39830153 PMC: 11739301. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1496153.

The influence of increasing color variety on numerosity estimation and counting.

Li Q, Ting G, Kikuno Y, Kazuhiko Y Psychon Bull Rev. 2025; .

PMID: 39753818 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02625-x.

Flexible word position coding in reading: Roles for attention and memory.

Snell J Mem Cognit. 2024; .

PMID: 39172204 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01623-7.

An embarrassment of richnesses: the PFC isn't the content NCC.

Kozuch B Neurosci Conscious. 2024; 2024(1):niae017.

PMID: 38938921 PMC: 11210398. DOI: 10.1093/nc/niae017.

Distributed attention beats the down-side of statistical context learning in visual search.

Zinchenko A, Conci M, Hauser J, Muller H, Geyer T J Vis. 2024; 20(7):4.

PMID: 38755793 PMC: 7424102. DOI: 10.1167/jov.20.7.4.

References

Li F, VanRullen R, Koch C, Perona P . Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99(14):9596-601. PMC: 123186. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.092277599. View

Levin D, Takarae Y, Miner A, Keil F . Efficient visual search by category: specifying the features that mark the difference between artifacts and animals in preattentive vision. Percept Psychophys. 2001; 63(4):676-97. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194429. View

Tanaka K . Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition. Science. 1993; 262(5134):685-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.8235589. View

Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C . Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature. 1996; 381(6582):520-2. DOI: 10.1038/381520a0. View

Freedman D, Riesenhuber M, Poggio T, Miller E . Categorical representation of visual stimuli in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science. 2001; 291(5502):312-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5502.312. View

Farah M, Tanaka J, Drain H . What causes the face inversion effect?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995; 21(3):628-34. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.628. View

McCollough C . Color Adaptation of Edge-Detectors in the Human Visual System. Science. 1965; 149(3688):1115-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.149.3688.1115. View

Dronkers N . A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature. 1996; 384(6605):159-61. DOI: 10.1038/384159a0. View

Treisman A . The binding problem. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1996; 6(2):171-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-4388(96)80070-5. View

10.

Simons D, Levin D . Change blindness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 1(7):261-7. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01080-2. View

11.

Treisman A, Schmidt H . Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cogn Psychol. 1982; 14(1):107-41. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90006-8. View

12.

Critchley H, Wiens S, Rotshtein P, Ohman A, Dolan R . Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nat Neurosci. 2004; 7(2):189-95. DOI: 10.1038/nn1176. View

13.

Freedman D, Riesenhuber M, Poggio T, Miller E . Visual categorization and the primate prefrontal cortex: neurophysiology and behavior. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 88(2):929-41. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2002.88.2.929. View

14.

Damasio A . Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: a systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition. 1989; 33(1-2):25-62. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90005-x. View

15.

Wise R, Greene J, Buchel C, Scott S . Brain regions involved in articulation. Lancet. 1999; 353(9158):1057-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)07491-1. View

16.

GROSS C, ROCHA-MIRANDA C, Bender D . Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the Macaque. J Neurophysiol. 1972; 35(1):96-111. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1972.35.1.96. View

17.

Corbetta M, Shulman G, Miezin F, Petersen S . Superior parietal cortex activation during spatial attention shifts and visual feature conjunction. Science. 1995; 270(5237):802-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5237.802. View

18.

Robertson L, Treisman A, Friedman-Hill S, Grabowecky M . The Interaction of Spatial and Object Pathways: Evidence from Balint's Syndrome. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 9(3):295-317. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.3.295. View

19.

Wolfe J, Bennett S . Preattentive object files: shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Res. 1997; 37(1):25-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00111-3. View

20.

VanRullen R, Reddy L, Koch C . Visual search and dual tasks reveal two distinct attentional resources. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004; 16(1):4-14. DOI: 10.1162/089892904322755502. View