Knowing What You Need But Not What You Want: Affordances and Action-Defined Templates in Neglect

We examined search for target objects in a patient, MP, showing symptoms of left unilateral neglect. The conditions varied how the target was defined, the numbers of targets and distractors, and whether search was for multiple or single targets. We found that search was substantially improved when the target was defined by a description of its action rather than its name. This advantage for action-defined targets increased with larger display sizes. For both action and name-defined targets, there were also larger effects of the number of distractors when search was for multiple rather than single targets, even when the numbers of distractors were kept constant. However, these effects were increased for name-defined targets. The differences between action- and name-defined targets decreased when objects were replaced with words. The data suggest that search could be based on action-defined templates of targets, activated by affordances from objects. The action-defined templates facilitated detection and reduced MP's tendency to re-search displays.

[1]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attention, Space, and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2001 .

[2]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  A Search Asymmetry Reversed by Figure-Ground Assignment , 2000, Psychological science.

[3]  J R Hodges,et al.  "What" and "how": evidence for the dissociation of object knowledge and mechanical problem-solving skills in the human brain. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Pointing and grasping in unilateral visual neglect: effectof on-line visual feedback in grasping , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Janice J. Snyder,et al.  Inhibition of return to successively stimulated locations in a sequential visual search paradigm. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual affordances direct action: neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[7]  C Bundesen,et al.  A computational theory of visual attention. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[8]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Impaired visual search in patients with unilateral neglect: an oculographic analysis , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  A. Hillis,et al.  Cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying visual and semantic processing: implications from 'optic aphasia' , 1997 .

[10]  V. Mark,et al.  Motor neglect , 1996, Neurology.

[11]  A. Milner,et al.  An Investigation of Hemispatial Neglect Using the Landmark Task , 1995, Brain and Cognition.

[12]  H. Egeth,et al.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  R. Rafal,et al.  Visual Extinction and Stimulus Repetition , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  John Duncan,et al.  A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex , 1993, Nature.

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

[17]  M. Mozer,et al.  Directing Attention to Words and Nonwords in Normal Subjects and in a Computational Model: Implications for Neglect Dyslexia , 1991 .

[18]  J. Riddoch,et al.  Interaction of attentional and lexical processes in neglect dyslexia , 1990 .

[19]  P. Calabresi,et al.  Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[21]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Recognition of visual letter strings following injury to the posterior visual spatial attention system , 1988 .

[22]  H. Pashler.  Target-distractor discriminability in visual search , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  M. J. Riddoch,et al.  Visual object processing in optic aphasia: a case of semantic access agnosia , 1987 .

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

[25]  M. Gado,et al.  Functional Anatomy of the Cerebral Cortex by Computed Tomography , 1979, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[26]  F. Chédru,et al.  Visual searching in normal and brain-damaged subjects (contribution to the study of unilateral inattention). , 1973, Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior.

[27]  J. Jonides,et al.  A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit , 1972 .

[28]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Attention, spatial representation, and visual neglect: simulating emergent attention and spatial memory in the selective attention for identification model (SAIM). , 2003, Psychological review.

[29]  Michael T. Turvey,et al.  The ecological approach to perception , 2002 .

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

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