Biased competition theory

Last updated

Biased competition theory advocates the idea that each object in the visual field competes for cortical representation and cognitive processing. [1] This theory suggests that the process of visual processing can be biased by other mental processes such as bottom-up and top-down systems which prioritize certain features of an object or whole items for attention and further processing. Biased competition theory is, simply stated, the competition of objects for processing. This competition can be biased, often toward the object that is currently attended in the visual field, or alternatively toward the object most relevant to behavior.

Contents

History

Research into the subject of attentional mechanisms in regard to visual perception was undertaken as an attempt to better understand the functional principles and potential constraints surrounding visual perception [2] Visual search tasks are commonly used by experimenters to aid the exploration of visual perception. The classical view of visual attention suggests that there are two basic principles: the pre-attentive stage and the attentive stage. [3] In the pre-attentive stage, an individual has an unlimited capacity for perception which is capable of processing information from the entire visual field concurrently. During the attentive stage, the processing of visual information corresponding to local spatial areas takes place. [4] This classical view of visual attention suggests that there is no competition within the visual field. Within this theory an individual is assumed to be capable of processing all information provided concurrently. Until recently it was still thought that individuals had a pre-attentive stage. This is no longer the case, research has now suggested that the pre-attentive stage is now limited in its capacity. [5] The attentive stage of being able to process important information has now transformed into what is known as selectivity. The classical view of attention has built the ground work for the recent emergence of two new principles to benefit the understanding of visual attention. The first of these relates to the limited capacity of information processing. This suggests that at any given time, only a small amount of information can actually be retained and used to control behaviour. The principle of selectivity incorporates the notion that a person has the ability to filter out unwanted information. Koch and Ullman [6] proposed that attentive selection could be implemented by competitive "winner-takes-all" networks. Robert Desimone and John Duncan [7] expanded on this idea. They proposed that at some point between the visual input of objects and the response to objects in the visual field there is some competition occurring; competition for representation, analysis, and behavior. This suggests that attention to stimuli makes more demands on processing capacity than unattended stimuli. [8] This idea of competition led researchers to develop a new theory of attention, which they termed the “biased competition theory". [9] The theory attempts to provide an explanation of the processes leading visual attention and their effects on the brain's neural systems. [10]

Function

Biased competition serves to prioritize task relevant information to make visual search more efficient. [11] A large amount of visual information is taken in at any given moment and there is a limited capacity available for processing. The visual system therefore needs a way to select relevant information and ignore irrelevant stimuli. A visual search usually has a target (e.g. a coffee cup), which is being searched for (task relevant) in the visual environment, and task irrelevant information is ignored. The biasing from neural mechanisms guides the search to logical spatial locations (e.g. the table) and items that have similar semantic or visual features to the item that is being searched for. It has been suggested that more than 30 cortical areas in the visual system are used for the processing of visual stimuli, and that there is competition from objects in the visual field that takes place in multiple areas of this extensive network. [12] [13]

The Biased Competition Model

Desimone suggested that the Biased Competition Model comprised five main tenets: [14]

  1. Objects presented simultaneously in the visual field compete for cell responses in the visual cortex. When two stimuli are presented at the same time they will activate their neuronal representations. The responses will be determined by these two stimuli interacting in a competitive manner.
  2. Two stimuli that activate cells in the same area of the cortex will provide the strongest competitive interactions.
  3. Competitive interactions have the ability to be biased in preference of one stimulus due to many different neural mechanisms. This is called feedback bias. These may include Top-down feedback (for example, one stimulus may hold more situational relevance) or Bottom-up influences (for example, one stimulus is more novel than another).
  4. Feedback biasing is not purely the result of spatial location. Biasing during processing can be due to a stimuli possessing specific, relevant feature. Such features may include color, texture, and shape.
  5. A main source of Top-down biasing derives from the structures in the brain involved with working memory, more specifically, from the prefrontal cortex.

Neural Mechanisms

There are two major neural pathways that process the information in the visual field; the ventral stream and the dorsal stream. The two pathways run in parallel and are both working simultaneously. The ventral stream is important for object recognition and often referred to as the “what” system of the brain; it projects to the inferior temporal cortex. [15] The dorsal stream is important for spatial perception and performance and is referred to as the “where” system [16] which projects to the posterior parietal cortex. [17] According to the biased competition theory, an individual's visual system has limited capacity to process information about multiple objects at any given time. For example, if an individual was presented with two stimuli (objects) and was asked to identify attributes of each object at the same time, the individual's performance would be worse in comparison to if the objects were presented separately. This suggests multiple objects presented simultaneously in the visual field will compete for neural representation due to limited processing resources. Single cell recording studies conducted by Kastner and Ungerleider examined the neural mechanisms behind the biased competition theory. [18] In their experiment the size of the receptive field's (RF) of neurons within the visual cortex were examined. A single visual stimulus was presented alone in a neuron's RF, followed with another stimulus presented simultaneously within the same RF. [19] The single ‘effective’ stimuli produced a low firing rate, whereas the two stimuli presented together produced a high firing rate. The response to the paired stimuli was reduced. This suggests that when two stimuli are presented together within a neuron's RF, the stimuli are processed in a mutually suppressive manner, rather than being processed independently. [20] This suppression process, according to Kastner and Ungerleider, occurs when two stimuli are presented together because they compete for neural representation, due to limited cognitive processing capacity. [21] The RF experiment suggests that as the number of objects increase, the information available for each object will decrease due to increased neural workload (suppression), and decreased cognitive capacity. [22] In order for an object in the visual field or RF be efficiently processed, there needs to be a way to bias these neurological resources towards the object. Attention prioritizes task relevant objects, biasing this process. For example, this bias can be towards an object which is currently attended to in the visual field or RF, or towards the object that is most relevant to one's behavior. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that biased competition theory can explain the observed attention effects at a neuronal level. Attention effects bias the internal weight (strengthens connections) of task relevant features toward the attended object. This was shown by Reddy, Kanwisher, and van Rullen who found an increase in oxygenated blood to a specific neuron following a locational cue. [23] Further neurological support comes from neurophysiological studies which have shown that attention results from Top-down biasing, which in turn influences neuronal spiking. [24] In sum, external inputs affect the Top-down guidance of attention, which bias specific neurons in the brain.

Empirical Evidence for Biased Competition Theory

Since the development of Biased Competition Theory much research has been undertaken to validate the theory's ideas. [25] [13] Research has formulated predictions based on the theoretical model to be tested in experimental settings. Top-down and Bottom-up biases have been tested in order to ascertain the legitimacy of their influence on visual perception and competition as described by Biased Competition Theory. These experiments provide evidence for the idea of feedback biasing as described in Desimone's five central tenets. [26]

Evidence of Bottom-up Process

Bottom-up processes are characterized by an absence of higher level direction in sensory processing. It primarily relies on sensory information and incoming sensory information is the starting point for all Bottom-up processing. Bottom-up refers to when a feature stands out in a visual search. This is commonly called the “pop-out” effect. [27] Salient features like bright colors, movement and big objects make the object “pop-out” of the visual search. “Pop-out” features can often attract attention without conscious processing. Objects that stand out are often given priority (bias) in processing. Bottom-up processing is data driven, and according to this stimuli are perceived on the basis of the data which is being experienced through the senses. [28] Evidence suggests that simultaneously presented stimuli do in fact compete in order to be represented in the visual cortex, with stimuli mutually suppressing each other to gain this representation. [29] This was examined by Reynolds and colleagues, who looked at the size of neurons’ receptive field's within the visual cortex. It was found that the presentation of a single stimulus resulted in a low firing rate while two stimuli presented together resulted in a higher firing rate. [30] Reynolds and colleagues also found that when comparing the neural response of an individually presented visual stimulus to responses gathered from simultaneously presented stimuli, the responses of the concurrent presented stimuli were less than the sum of the responses gathered when each stimuli was presented alone. [31] This suggests that two stimuli presented together increase neural work load required for attention. This increased neural load creates suppressive processes and causes the stimuli to compete for neural representation in the brain. Proulx and Egeth predicted that brighter objects would bias attention in favor of that object. Another prediction is that larger objects would bias the attention in favor of that object. [32] The experiment was a computer-based visual search task, where participants searched for a target among distractions. The results of the study suggested that when irrelevant stimuli were large or bright, attention was biased towards the irrelevant objects, prioritizing them for cognitive processing. [33] This research shows the effects of Bottom-up (stimulus-driven) processing on biased competition theory.

Evidence of Top-down Processes

A Top-down process is characterized by a high level of direction of sensory processing by more cognition; Top-down processing is based on pre-existing knowledge when interpreting sensory information. [34] [13] Top-down guidance of attention refers to when the properties of an object (i.e. color, shape) are activated and held in working memory to facilitate the visual search for that object. [35] This controls visual search by guiding attention only to objects that could be the target and avoiding attention on irrelevant objects. Top-down processes are not a complete representation of the object but are coarse, which is why objects similar in color, shape or meaning are often attended to in the process of discriminating irrelevant objects. There is evidence that observers have Top-down control over the locations that will benefit from biased competition in spatial selection visual tasks. Evidence supports that observers can make voluntary decision about which locations are selected [36] or features that capture the attention in a stimulus-driven manner. [37] Neurophysiology studies have showed that the neural mechanisms in Top-down processing are also seen in attention and working memory, suggesting Top-down processes play an important role in those functions as well. [38] Additionally, Top-down processes can modulate Bottom-up processes by suppressing the “pop-out” features of Bottom-up processing from distracting from the visual search. fMRI studies have investigated the Top-down and Bottom-up processes involved in biased competition theory. [39] Results of fMRI suggest that both Bottom-up and Top-down processes work in parallel to bias competition. [40] Multiple studies have shown that stimuli in the visual field suppress each other when presented together, but not when each stimulus is presented alone. Kastner and colleagues also found that directing attention to the specific location of a stimulus reduces the suppressive effect. Increased activity in the visual cortex was also observed; this was the result of Top-down biasing due to the favoring of the attended location. [41]

Further Evidence

Another supposition of Biased Competition Theory, that competition is integrated across multiple systems in the brain (for example, the visual system as well as working memory), is least studied. [42] However, empirical evidence has been undertaken to confirm the authenticity of this claim. Studies have shown this integration of differing brain systems by undertaking neuroimaging research. Activation in the middle temporal area, as well as the fusiform face area was seen when subjects were asked to attend to a moving face. [43] The middle temporal area is involved in the perception of motion, while the fusiform face area is involved in facial recognition, showing the integrated systems of the brain in Biased Competition Theory. Ferrera and Lisberger [44] provided evidence for competitive interactions in the selection of targets for smooth pursuit eye movements.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual cortex</span> Region of the brain that processes visual information

The visual cortex of the brain is the area of the cerebral cortex that processes visual information. It is located in the occipital lobe. Sensory input originating from the eyes travels through the lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus and then reaches the visual cortex. The area of the visual cortex that receives the sensory input from the lateral geniculate nucleus is the primary visual cortex, also known as visual area 1 (V1), Brodmann area 17, or the striate cortex. The extrastriate areas consist of visual areas 2, 3, 4, and 5.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attention</span> Psychological process of selectively perceiving and prioritising discrete aspects of information

Attention is the concentration of awareness on some phenomenon to the exclusion of other stimuli. It is a process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether considered subjective or objective. William James (1890) wrote that "Attention is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence." Attention has also been described as the allocation of limited cognitive processing resources. Attention is manifested by an attentional bottleneck, in terms of the amount of data the brain can process each second; for example, in human vision, only less than 1% of the visual input data can enter the bottleneck, leading to inattentional blindness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wishful thinking</span> Formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire. Methodologies to examine wishful thinking are diverse. Various disciplines and schools of thought examine related mechanisms such as neural circuitry, human cognition and emotion, types of bias, procrastination, motivation, optimism, attention and environment. This concept has been examined as a fallacy. It is related to the concept of wishful seeing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neuroesthetics</span> Sub-discipline of empirical aesthetics

Neuroesthetics is a relatively recent sub-discipline of applied aesthetics. Empirical aesthetics takes a scientific approach to the study of aesthetic experience of art, music, or any object that can give rise to aesthetic judgments. Neuroesthetics is a term coined by Semir Zeki in 1999 and received its formal definition in 2002 as the scientific study of the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art. Neuroesthetics uses neuroscience to explain and understand the aesthetic experiences at the neurological level. The topic attracts scholars from many disciplines including neuroscientists, art historians, artists, art therapists and psychologists.

Visual processing is a term that is used to refer to the brain's ability to use and interpret visual information from the world around us. The process of converting light energy into a meaningful image is a complex process that is facilitated by numerous brain structures and higher level cognitive processes. On an anatomical level, light energy first enters the eye through the cornea, where the light is bent. After passing through the cornea, light passes through the pupil and then lens of the eye, where it is bent to a greater degree and focused upon the retina. The retina is where a group of light-sensing cells, called photoreceptors are located. There are two types of photoreceptors: rods and cones. Rods are sensitive to dim light and cones are better able to transduce bright light. Photoreceptors connect to bipolar cells, which induce action potentials in retinal ganglion cells. These retinal ganglion cells form a bundle at the optic disc, which is a part of the optic nerve. The two optic nerves from each eye meet at the optic chiasm, where nerve fibers from each nasal retina cross which results in the right half of each eye's visual field being represented in the left hemisphere and the left half of each eye's visual fields being represented in the right hemisphere. The optic tract then diverges into two visual pathways, the geniculostriate pathway and the tectopulvinar pathway, which send visual information to the visual cortex of the occipital lobe for higher level processing.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to an orientation mechanism that briefly enhances the speed and accuracy with which an object is detected after the object is attended, but then impairs detection speed and accuracy. IOR is usually measured with a cue-response paradigm, in which a person presses a button when they detect a target stimulus following the presentation of a cue that indicates the location in which the target will appear. The cue can be exogenous, or endogenous. Inhibition of return results from oculomotor activation, regardless of whether it was produced by exogenous signals or endogenously. Although IOR occurs for both visual and auditory stimuli, IOR is greater for visual stimuli, and is studied more often than auditory stimuli.

Salience is that property by which some thing stands out. Salient events are an attentional mechanism by which organisms learn and survive; those organisms can focus their limited perceptual and cognitive resources on the pertinent subset of the sensory data available to them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Inferior temporal gyrus</span> One of three gyri of the temporal lobe of the brain

The inferior temporal gyrus is one of three gyri of the temporal lobe and is located below the middle temporal gyrus, connected behind with the inferior occipital gyrus; it also extends around the infero-lateral border on to the inferior surface of the temporal lobe, where it is limited by the inferior sulcus. This region is one of the higher levels of the ventral stream of visual processing, associated with the representation of objects, places, faces, and colors. It may also be involved in face perception, and in the recognition of numbers and words.

Visual search is a type of perceptual task requiring attention that typically involves an active scan of the visual environment for a particular object or feature among other objects or features. Visual search can take place with or without eye movements. The ability to consciously locate an object or target amongst a complex array of stimuli has been extensively studied over the past 40 years. Practical examples of using visual search can be seen in everyday life, such as when one is picking out a product on a supermarket shelf, when animals are searching for food among piles of leaves, when trying to find a friend in a large crowd of people, or simply when playing visual search games such as Where's Wally?

The mismatch negativity (MMN) or mismatch field (MMF) is a component of the event-related potential (ERP) to an odd stimulus in a sequence of stimuli. It arises from electrical activity in the brain and is studied within the field of cognitive neuroscience and psychology. It can occur in any sensory system, but has most frequently been studied for hearing and for vision, in which case it is abbreviated to vMMN. The (v)MMN occurs after an infrequent change in a repetitive sequence of stimuli For example, a rare deviant (d) stimulus can be interspersed among a series of frequent standard (s) stimuli. In hearing, a deviant sound can differ from the standards in one or more perceptual features such as pitch, duration, loudness, or location. The MMN can be elicited regardless of whether someone is paying attention to the sequence. During auditory sequences, a person can be reading or watching a silent subtitled movie, yet still show a clear MMN. In the case of visual stimuli, the MMN occurs after an infrequent change in a repetitive sequence of images.

Repetition priming refers to improvements in a behavioural response when stimuli are repeatedly presented. The improvements can be measured in terms of accuracy or reaction time and can occur when the repeated stimuli are either identical or similar to previous stimuli. These improvements have been shown to be cumulative, so as the number of repetitions increases the responses get continually faster up to a maximum of around seven repetitions. These improvements are also found when the repeated items are changed slightly in terms of orientation, size and position. The size of the effect is also modulated by the length of time the item is presented for and the length time between the first and subsequent presentations of the repeated items.

Discrete categories of objects such as faces, body parts, tools, animals and buildings have been associated with preferential activation in specialised areas of the cerebral cortex, leading to the suggestion that they may be produced separately in discrete neural regions.

Visual object recognition refers to the ability to identify the objects in view based on visual input. One important signature of visual object recognition is "object invariance", or the ability to identify objects across changes in the detailed context in which objects are viewed, including changes in illumination, object pose, and background context.

Robert Desimone is an American neuroscientist who currently serves as the director of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In neuroscience, the visual P200 or P2 is a waveform component or feature of the event-related potential (ERP) measured at the human scalp. Like other potential changes measurable from the scalp, this effect is believed to reflect the post-synaptic activity of a specific neural process. The P2 component, also known as the P200, is so named because it is a positive going electrical potential that peaks at about 200 milliseconds after the onset of some external stimulus. This component is often distributed around the centro-frontal and the parieto-occipital areas of the scalp. It is generally found to be maximal around the vertex of the scalp, however there have been some topographical differences noted in ERP studies of the P2 in different experimental conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual N1</span>

The visual N1 is a visual evoked potential, a type of event-related electrical potential (ERP), that is produced in the brain and recorded on the scalp. The N1 is so named to reflect the polarity and typical timing of the component. The "N" indicates that the polarity of the component is negative with respect to an average mastoid reference. The "1" originally indicated that it was the first negative-going component, but it now better indexes the typical peak of this component, which is around 150 to 200 milliseconds post-stimulus. The N1 deflection may be detected at most recording sites, including the occipital, parietal, central, and frontal electrode sites. Although, the visual N1 is widely distributed over the entire scalp, it peaks earlier over frontal than posterior regions of the scalp, suggestive of distinct neural and/or cognitive correlates. The N1 is elicited by visual stimuli, and is part of the visual evoked potential – a series of voltage deflections observed in response to visual onsets, offsets, and changes. Both the right and left hemispheres generate an N1, but the laterality of the N1 depends on whether a stimulus is presented centrally, laterally, or bilaterally. When a stimulus is presented centrally, the N1 is bilateral. When presented laterally, the N1 is larger, earlier, and contralateral to the visual field of the stimulus. When two visual stimuli are presented, one in each visual field, the N1 is bilateral. In the latter case, the N1's asymmetrical skewedness is modulated by attention. Additionally, its amplitude is influenced by selective attention, and thus it has been used to study a variety of attentional processes.

Pre-attentive processing is the subconscious accumulation of information from the environment. All available information is pre-attentively processed. Then, the brain filters and processes what is important. Information that has the highest salience or relevance to what a person is thinking about is selected for further and more complete analysis by conscious (attentive) processing. Understanding how pre-attentive processing works is useful in advertising, in education, and for prediction of cognitive ability.

The neurocircuitry that underlies executive function processes and emotional and motivational processes are known to be distinct in the brain. However, there are brain regions that show overlap in function between the two cognitive systems. Brain regions that exist in both systems are interesting mainly for studies on how one system affects the other. Examples of such cross-modal functions are emotional regulation strategies such as emotional suppression and emotional reappraisal, the effect of mood on cognitive tasks, and the effect of emotional stimulation of cognitive tasks.

Michael E. Goldberg, also known as Mickey Goldberg, is an American neuroscientist and David Mahoney Professor at Columbia University. He is known for his work on the mechanisms of the mammalian eye in relation to brain activity. He served as president of the Society for Neuroscience from 2009 to 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sabine Kastner</span> German-born American cognitive neuroscientist

Sabine Kastner is a German-born American cognitive neuroscientist. She is professor of psychology at the Princeton Neuroscience Institute at Princeton University. She also holds a visiting scientist appointment at the University of California at Berkeley.

References

  1. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  2. ↑ Rolls, E. T. (2008). Memory, attention and decision-making: A unified computational neuro-science approach; Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  3. ↑ Rolls, E. T. (2008). Memory, attention and decision-making: A unified computational neuro-science approach; Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  4. ↑ Rolls, E. T. (2008). Memory, attention and decision-making: A unified computational neuro-science approach; Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  5. ↑ Rolls, E. T. (2008). Memory, attention and decision-making: A unified computational neuro-science approach; Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  6. ↑ Koch C, & Ullman S (1985) Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology 4:219-227.
  7. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  8. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  9. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  10. ↑ Rolls, E. T. (2008). Memory, attention and decision-making: A unified computational neuro-science approach; Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  11. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  12. ↑ Desimone R, Ungerleider LG. (1989). Neural mechanisms of visual processing in monkeys. In Handbook of Neuropsychology, Vol. 2, ed. F Boller, J Grafman, pp. 267-99. New York: Elsevier.
  13. 1 2 3 Baldauf D, Desimone R (Mar 2014). "Neural mechanisms of object-based attention". Science . 344 (6182): 424–427. Bibcode:2014Sci...344..424B. doi: 10.1126/science.1247003 . PMID   24763592. S2CID   34728448.
  14. ↑ 4. Desimone, R. (1998). Visual attention mediated by biased competition in extrastriate visual cortex. ‘’Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 353’’, 1245-1255.
  15. ↑ Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 157-165.
  16. ↑ Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 157-165.
  17. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  18. ↑ Kastner, S., L, G., Ungerleider. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 39, 1263-1276.
  19. ↑ Kastner, S., L, G., Ungerleider. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 39, 1263-1276.
  20. ↑ Kastner, S., L, G., Ungerleider. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 39, 1263-1276.
  21. ↑ Kastner, S., L, G., Ungerleider. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 39, 1263-1276.
  22. ↑ Kastner, S., L, G., Ungerleider. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 39, 1263-1276.
  23. ↑ Reddy, L., Kanwisher, N.G, & VanRullen, R. (2009). Attention and biased competition in multiple voxel object representations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 50, 21447-21452.
  24. ↑ Deco, G., & Rolls, E.T. (2005). Neurodynamics of biased competition and cooperation for attention: A model with Spiking Neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 295-313.
  25. ↑ Beck, D.M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and Bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. ‘’Vision Research, 49’’, 1154-1165.
  26. ↑ Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanism of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
  27. ↑ Gleitman, H., & Jonides, J. (1978). The effect of set on categorization in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 24(4), 361-368.
  28. ↑ "Bottom-up and Top-down Processing | Psychology Concepts". Archived from the original on 2019-09-11.
  29. ↑ Beck, D.M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. ‘’Vision Research, 49’’, 1154-1165.
  30. ↑ Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., & Desimone, R. (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1736–1753.
  31. ↑ Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., & Desimone, R. (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1736–1753.
  32. ↑ Proulx, M.J., & Egeth, H.E. (2008). Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast. Psychological Research, 72, 106-113.
  33. ↑ Proulx, M.J., & Egeth, H.E. (2008). Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast. Psychological Research, 72, 106-113.
  34. ↑ "Bottom-up and Top-down Processing | Psychology Concepts".
  35. ↑ Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S.J. (2009). The role of visual working memory (VWM) in the control of gaze during visual search. Attention, Perception, & psycho physics, 71, 4, 936-949.
  36. ↑ Jonides, J. (1980). Towards a model of the mind’s eye’s movement. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 103–112.
  37. ↑ Gazzaley, A., & Nobre, A.C. (2012). Top-down Modulation: Bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 2, 129-135.
  38. ↑ Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S.J. (2009). The role of visual working memory (VWM) in the control of gaze during visual search. Attention, Perception, & psycho physics, 71, 4, 936-949.
  39. ↑ Beck, D.M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and Bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. ‘’Vision Research, 49’’, 1154-1165.
  40. ↑ Beck, D.M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. ‘’Vision Research, 49’’, 1154-1165.
  41. ↑ O’Craven, K. M., Downing, P., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature, 401, 584–587.
  42. ↑ Beck, D.M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. ‘’Vision Research, 49’’, 1154-1165.
  43. ↑ Kastner, S., Pinsk, M., De Weerd, P., Desimone, R., & Ungerleider, L. (1999). Increased activity in human visual cortex during directed attention in the absence of visual stimulation. Neuron. 22, 751-761.
  44. ↑ Ferrera V.P., & Lisberger S.G. (1995) Attention and target selection for smooth pursuit eye movements. Journal of Neuroscience 15(11);7472-7484.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.