Modularity and attention: Is the binding problem real?

Abstract Van der Heijden rejects the feature integration theory of visual attention (Treisman, 1988, 1993; Treisman & Gelade, 1980) and proposes instead a theory relating modularity in the visual system to selection for action. His positive proposals about the relations between visual processing, intention, and selection for action are interesting, but I do not believe they are incompatible with my theory. In this paper I will focus on and question his arguments about the binding problem and the role of attention in visual perception. Van der Heijden attacks two claims that are fundamental to my theory: (1) the idea that modularity gives rise to a “binding problem” (the need to specify which of the features present characterize any particular object), and (2) the more general idea that there are limits to capacity at the level of perceptual processing. I will argue that he is wrong to reject the two claims, that the binding problem is a real one, for his model as for others, and that his account is more s...

[1]  A. Treisman.  Strategies and models of selective attention. , 1969, Psychological review.

[2]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[3]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  B. Julesz.  A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision , 1984, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Emergent features, attention, and object perception. , 1984 .

[7]  R. Desimone,et al.  Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. , 1985, Science.

[8]  Channelling and channelling radiation , 1987, Nature.

[9]  A. Treisman.  Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  S. Shipp,et al.  The functional logic of cortical connections , 1988, Nature.

[11]  Allen Allport,et al.  Visual attention , 1989 .

[12]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  E. Azmitia.  Microcultures of Dissociated Primary Central Nervous System Neurons , 1990 .

[14]  C. Koch,et al.  Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness , 1990 .

[15]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Limitations on the Parallel Guidance of Visual Search : Color x Color and Orientation x Orientation Conjuctions , 2004 .

[16]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited , 1990 .

[17]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[18]  W. Singer,et al.  Temporal coding in the visual cortex: new vistas on integration in the nervous system , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[19]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  M. Posner,et al.  Images of mind , 1994 .

[21]  N. Lavie.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.