How object-specific are object files? Evidence for integration by location.

Given the distributed representation of visual features in the human brain, binding mechanisms are necessary to integrate visual information about the same perceptual event. It has been assumed that feature codes are bound into object files--pointers to the neural codes of the features of a given event. The present study investigated the perceptual criteria underlying integration into an object file. Previous studies confounded the sharing of spatial location with belongingness to the same perceptual object, 2 factors we tried to disentangle. Our findings suggest that orientation and color features appearing in a task-irrelevant preview display were integrated irrespective of whether they appeared as part of the same object or of different objects (e.g., 1 stationary and the other moving continuously, or a banana in a particular orientation overlaying an apple of a particular color). In contrast, integration was markedly reduced when the 2 objects were separated in space. Taken together, these findings suggest that spatial overlap of visual features is a sufficient criterion for integrating them into the same object file.

[1]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature binding, attention and object perception. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  S. Zeki.  The functional organization of projections from striate to prestriate visual cortex in the rhesus monkey. , 1976, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[3]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Adaptive control of event integration. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Elkan G. Akyürek,et al.  Adaptive control of event integration: evidence from event-related potentials. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[5]  M D Anes,et al.  Roles of object-file review and type priming in visual identification within and across eye fixations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  S. Tipper,et al.  The medium of attention: Location-based, object-centered, or scene-based? , 1998 .

[7]  B. Hommel,et al.  What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  J. Duncan.  Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. , 1996 .

[9]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Neurobiology of Attention , 2005 .

[10]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  W. Cowan,et al.  Annual Review of Neuroscience , 1995 .

[12]  Yaoda Xu.  Understanding the object benefit in visual short-term memory: The roles of feature proximity and connectedness , 2006, Perception & Psychophysics.

[13]  B. Hommel.  Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[15]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY , 2010 .

[16]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection , 1999, Nature.

[17]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Feature integration across perception and action: event files affect response choice , 2007, Psychological research.

[18]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  When moving faces activate the house area: an fMRI study of object-file retrieval , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[19]  W. Schneider,et al.  Space-based visual attention models and object selection: Constraints, problems, and possible solutions , 1993, Psychological research.

[20]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Indexing and the object concept: developing `what' and `where' systems , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  M. Potter,et al.  The time course of competition for attention: attention is initially labile. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  A. Treisman.  The binding problem , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  The persistence of object file representations , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[25]  B. Hommel,et al.  Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration , 2004 .

[26]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  J. Duncan.  Similarity between concurrent visual discriminations: Dimensions and objects , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  B. Hommel.  How much attention does an event file need? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  B. Hommel,et al.  When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration , 2009 .

[30]  A. Treisman.  Perceiving and re-perceiving objects. , 1992, The American psychologist.

[31]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes , 1999 .

[32]  Michael C. Mozer,et al.  Space-and object-based attention , 2005 .

[33]  B Hyland,et al.  Cortical cell assemblies: a possible mechanism for motor programs. , 1994, Journal of motor behavior.

[34]  J. Duncan,et al.  Competitive brain activity in visual attention , 1997, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[35]  B. Hommel,et al.  The microgenesis of action-effect binding , 2009, Psychological research.

[36]  David E. Irwin,et al.  What’s in an object file? Evidence from priming studies , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  HighWire Press.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[38]  B. Hommel.  Event Files: Evidence for Automatic Integration of Stimulus-Response Episodes , 1998 .

[39]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Object Files Can Be Purely Episodic , 2007, Perception.

[40]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[41]  H. Berg.  Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology.: Vol. LII. Evolution of Catalytic Functions. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1987, ISBN 0-87969-054-2, xix + 955 pp., US $150.00. , 1989 .

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

[43]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.