Counting Multidimensional Objects

It has been suggested that a neural instantiation of the temporary multidimensional representations of objects might be synchrony of firing between the neurons representing the features that co-occur in a given location. In this article, we direct attention to a logical problem that arises when certain synchrony assumptions are applied to real situations in which multiple multidimensional objects are presented. We demonstrate a new behavioral effect that shows that this logical problem coincides with a genuine behavioral problem. Even when a display contains only a small number of objects characterized by features on two dimensions, the representation of the display becomes difficult when, according to our described assumptions, the object representations cannot be simultaneously synchronized on both features. This article outlines a new principle that governs object representation, and the experimental results might be unique behavioral evidence for a neural-based theory of feature binding.

[1]  A. Raffone,et al.  A Cortical Mechanism for Binding in Visual Working Memory , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Neuronal synchrony does not represent texture segregation , 1998, Nature.

[3]  C. Packer,et al.  Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

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

[5]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement , 2008, Nature.

[6]  G. Woodman,et al.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  S. Dehaene,et al.  THREE PARIETAL CIRCUITS FOR NUMBER PROCESSING , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[8]  W. Singer,et al.  Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  A. Treisman.  How the deployment of attention determines what we see , 2006, Visual cognition.

[10]  Philippe Pinel,et al.  Tuning Curves for Approximate Numerosity in the Human Intraparietal Sulcus , 2004, Neuron.

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

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

[13]  Christoph von der Malsburg,et al.  The What and Why of Binding The Modeler’s Perspective , 1999, Neuron.

[14]  S. Dehaene,et al.  A Magnitude Code Common to Numerosities and Number Symbols in Human Intraparietal Cortex , 2007, Neuron.

[15]  Michael N. Shadlen,et al.  Synchrony Unbound A Critical Evaluation of the Temporal Binding Hypothesis , 1999, Neuron.

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

[17]  S Ullman,et al.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. , 1985, Human neurobiology.