Feature Confirmation in Object Perception: Feature Integration Theory 26 Years on from the Treisman Bartlett Lecture

The Treisman Bartlett lecture, reported in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1988, provided a major overview of the feature integration theory of attention. This has continued to be a dominant account of human visual attention to this day. The current paper provides a summary of the work reported in the lecture and an update on critical aspects of the theory as applied to visual object perception. The paper highlights the emergence of findings that pose significant challenges to the theory and which suggest that revisions are required that allow for (a) several rather than a single form of feature integration, (b) some forms of feature integration to operate preattentively, (c) stored knowledge about single objects and interactions between objects to modulate perceptual integration, (d) the application of feature-based inhibition to object files where visual features are specified, which generates feature-based spreading suppression and scene segmentation, and (e) a role for attention in feature confirmation rather than feature integration in visual selection. A feature confirmation account of attention in object perception is outlined.

[1]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Unconscious Familiarity-based Color–Form Binding: Evidence from Visual Extinction , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Visual search for singleton targets redundantly defined in two feature dimensions: Coactive processing of color-motion targets? , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Haptic Shape Processing in Visual Cortex , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Wei Tan,et al.  Short-term perceptual learning in visual conjunction search. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  A Dorsal Visual Route Necessary for Global Form Perception: Evidence from Neuropsychological fMRI , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Dragan Rangelov,et al.  Visual search for feature singletons: multiple mechanisms produce sequence effects in visual search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[7]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The attraction of yellow corn: reduced attentional constraints on coding learned conjunctive relations. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual responses to action between unfamiliar object pairs modulateextinction , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  B. Rossion The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception , 2013 .

[10]  Fan Wu,et al.  Robust object-based encoding in visual working memory. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[11]  S. Bentin,et al.  Crowd perception in prosopagnosia , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  The Neural Underpinings of Simultanagnosia: Disconnecting the Visuospatial Attention Network , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Inhibitory guidance in visual search: The case of movement–form conjunctions , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[14]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Neglect field objects impact statistical property report in patients with unilateral spatial neglect , 2011 .

[15]  Todd S Horowitz,et al.  Automatic feature-based grouping during multiple object tracking. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  George A. Alvarez,et al.  Natural-Scene Perception Requires Attention , 2011, Psychological science.

[17]  Hermann J. Müller,et al.  Neural correlates of binding features within- or cross-dimensions in visual conjunction search: An fMRI study , 2011, NeuroImage.

[18]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Effects of action relations on the configural coding between objects. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[20]  S. Kastner,et al.  Interactions of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mechanisms in Human Visual Cortex , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Sabine Kastner,et al.  Defining the Units of Competition: Influences of Perceptual Organization on Competitive Interactions in Human Visual Cortex , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  Z. Kourtzi,et al.  Learning Alters the Tuning of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patterns for Visual Forms , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system , 2010, NeuroImage.

[24]  Nicole C. Rust,et al.  Selectivity and Tolerance (“Invariance”) Both Increase as Visual Information Propagates from Cortical Area V4 to IT , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Coding and binding of color and form in visual cortex. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[26]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  The one that does, leads: action relations influence the perceived temporal order of graspable objects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  The interaction of attention and action: from seeing action to acting on perception. , 2010, British journal of psychology.

[28]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The decomposition of visual binding over time: Neuropsychological evidence from illusory conjunctions after posterior parietal damage , 2010 .

[29]  Lei Mo,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for effects of color knowledge in object recognition , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

[30]  Jason M Haberman,et al.  Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Fractionating the binding process: neuropsychological evidence from reversed search efficiencies. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Andreas Bartels,et al.  The Coding of Color, Motion, and Their Conjunction in the Human Visual Cortex , 2009, Current Biology.

[33]  Hermann J Müller,et al.  Gamma flicker triggers attentional selection without awareness , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The role of reentrant processes in feature binding: Evidence from neuropsychology and TMS on late onset illusory conjunctions , 2009 .

[35]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Selective nontarget inhibition in Multiple Object Tracking , 2008 .

[36]  J. Driver,et al.  Abnormal Attentional Modulation of Retinotopic Cortex in Parietal Patients with Spatial Neglect , 2008, Current Biology.

[37]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Automatic statistical processing of visual properties in simultanagnosia , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  L. Vainio,et al.  Grasp preparation improves change detection for congruent objects. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Sensitivity to Object Viewpoint and Action Instructions During Search for Targets in the Lower Visual Field , 2008, Psychological science.

[40]  Shihui Han,et al.  The Fronto-Parietal Network and Top-Down Modulation of Perceptual Grouping , 2007, Neurocase.

[41]  Thomas Geyer,et al.  Top-down inhibition of search distractors in parallel visual search , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Glyn W Humphreys,et al.  Interactions between perception and action programming: Evidence from visual extinction and optic ataxia , 2007, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[43]  Nele Demeyere,et al.  Distributed and focused attention: neuropsychological evidence for separate attentional mechanisms when counting and estimating. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  P. Bex,et al.  The perception of suprathreshold contrast and fast adaptive filtering. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[45]  S. Kastner,et al.  Stimulus similarity modulates competitive interactions in human visual cortex. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[46]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Automatic, stimulus-driven attentional capture by objecthood , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  G. Humphreys,et al.  On the relations between implicit and explicit spatial binding: Evidence from Balint’s syndrome , 2006, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[48]  A. Treisman,et al.  Perception of objects in natural scenes: is it really attention free? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Lihua Mao,et al.  Attentional modulation of perceptual grouping in human visual cortex: ERP studies , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[50]  Lihua Mao,et al.  Attentional modulation of perceptual grouping in human visual cortex: Functional MRI studies , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[51]  P. Perona,et al.  Why does natural scene categorization require little attention? Exploring attentional requirements for natural and synthetic stimuli , 2005 .

[52]  A. Treisman,et al.  Statistical processing: computing the average size in perceptual groups , 2005, Vision Research.

[53]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[54]  Morris Goldsmith,et al.  Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[55]  G. Humphreys,et al.  From What to Where , 2003, Psychological science.

[56]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[57]  Geoffrey Ho,et al.  Plasticity of feature-based selection in triple-conjunction search. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[58]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  When a reappearance is old news: visual marking survives occlusion. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  A. Treisman,et al.  Representation of statistical properties , 2003, Vision Research.

[60]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[61]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Visual Search Is Modulated by Action Intentions , 2002, Psychological science.

[62]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[63]  P. Perona,et al.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[64]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  A measurement theory of illusory conjunctions. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[65]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[66]  Zhaoping Li A saliency map in primary visual cortex , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Lexical recovery from extinction: Interactions between visual form and stored knowledge modulate visual selection , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[68]  D. Ariely Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties , 2001, Psychological science.

[69]  H. Müller,et al.  Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: inhibition of return. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[70]  Ruxandra Sireteanu,et al.  Perceptual learning in visual search generalizes over tasks, locations, and eyes , 2000, Vision Research.

[71]  A. Yagi,et al.  Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[72]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Fractionating the binding process: neuropsychological evidence distinguishing binding of form from binding of surface features , 2000, Vision Research.

[73]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[74]  V. Walsh,et al.  Perceptual Learning in Visual Conjunction Search , 1998, Perception.

[75]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Neural representation of objects in space: a dual coding account. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[77]  Alan Cowey,et al.  Cortical plasticity in perceptual learning demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[78]  Ewa Wojciulik Nancy Kanwisher Implicit but not Explicit Feature Binding in a Balint's Patient , 1998 .

[79]  Jon Driver,et al.  Kanizsa subjective figures can act as occluding surfaces at parallel stages of visual search , 1998 .

[80]  Amanda Ellison,et al.  Perceptual learning in visual search: Some evidence of specificities , 1998, Vision Research.

[81]  A. Treisman,et al.  The Interaction of Spatial and Object Pathways: Evidence from Balint's Syndrome , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[82]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Grouping and Extinction: Evidence for Low-level Modulation of Visual Selection , 1996 .

[83]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[84]  B. Hood,et al.  The intention to act improves unilateral left neglect: two demonstrations , 1995, Neuroreport.

[85]  A. Treisman,et al.  Parietal contributions to visual feature binding: evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions , 1995, Science.

[86]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Non-spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans , 1994, Nature.

[87]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[88]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[89]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology , 1993 .

[90]  H. J. Muller,et al.  SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A Connectionist Model of Visual Search , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[91]  S. Yantis Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[93]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[94]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Sensitivity To Three-Dimensional Orientation in Visual Search , 1990 .

[95]  F. Previc Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[96]  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.

[97]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[98]  Hans-Otto Karnath,et al.  Deficits of attention in acute and recovered visual hemi-neglect , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[99]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search , 1988, Nature.

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

[101]  M. Posner,et al.  Does attention affect visual feature integration? , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[102]  D. Bouwhuis,et al.  Attention and performance X : control of language processes , 1986 .

[103]  M. R. Houck,et al.  Conjunction of color and form without attention: evidence from an orientation-contingent color aftereffect. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[104]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

[105]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[106]  A. Treisman Preattentive processing in vision , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[107]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[110]  A. Cowey Cortical Maps and Visual Perception the Grindley Memorial Lecture* , 1979, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[111]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[112]  C. McCollough Color Adaptation of Edge-Detectors in the Human Visual System , 1965, Science.

[113]  A. Luria,et al.  Disorders of "simultaneous perception" in a case of bilateral occipito-parietal brain injury. , 1959, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[114]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Approaches to Visual Search , 2014 .

[115]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Fast color grouping and slow color inhibition: evidence for distinct temporal windows for separate processes in preview search. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[116]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[117]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[118]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Detection by action: neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[119]  N. P. Bichot,et al.  Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[120]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. , 1997, Psychological review.

[121]  H. Müller,et al.  Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[122]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Preemption effects in visual search: evidence for low-level grouping. , 1995, Psychological review.

[123]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[124]  W Singer,et al.  Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[125]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Search via recursive rejection (SERR): visual search for single and dual form-conjunction targets. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[126]  Jon Driver,et al.  Grouping reduces visual extinction: Neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection , 1994 .

[127]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking : prioritising selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition , 1994 .

[128]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[129]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: effects with single- and combined-feature targets. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[131]  Z W Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. , 1988, Spatial vision.

[132]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[133]  Human Neuroscience , 2022 .