The persistence of object file representations

Coherent visual experience of dynamic scenes requires not only that the visual system segment scenes into component objects but that these object representations persist, so that an object can be identified as the same object from an earlier time. Object files (OFs) are visual representations thought to mediate such abilities: OFs lie between lower level sensory processing and higher level recognition, and they track salient objects over time and motion. OFs have traditionally been studied viaobjectspecific preview benefits (OSPBs), in which discriminations of an object’s features are speeded when an earlier preview of those features occurred on the same object, as opposed to on a different object, beyond general displaywide priming. Despite its popularity, many fundamental aspects of the OF framework remain unexplored. For example, although OFs are thought to be involved primarily in online visual processing, we do not know how long such representations persist; previous studies found OSPBs for up to 1,500msec but did not test for longer durations. We explored this issue using a modifiedobject reviewing paradigm and found that robust OSPBs persist for more than five times longer than has previously been tested—for at least 8 sec, and possibly for much longer. Object files may be the “glue” that makes visual experience coherent not just in online moment-by-moment processing, but on the scale of seconds that characterizes our everyday perceptual experiences. These findings also bear on research in infant cognition, where OFs are thought to explain infants’ abilities to track and enumerate small sets of objects over longer durations.

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

[2]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  K. Wynn,et al.  Infants' tracking of objects and collections , 2000, Cognition.

[4]  Susan Carey,et al.  Infants' knowledge of objects: beyond object files and object tracking , 2001, Cognition.

[5]  J. Kruschke,et al.  The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects , 1996 .

[6]  A Pollatsek,et al.  Role of spatial location in integration of pictorial information across saccades. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Steven Yantis,et al.  Masking unveils pre-amodal completion representation in visual search , 2001, Nature.

[8]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Infants' representation and tracking of multiple objects , 2000 .

[9]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[10]  R. Baillargeon The Acquisition of Physical Knowledge in Infancy: A Summary in Eight Lessons , 2007 .

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

[12]  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.

[13]  S. Carey,et al.  Infants’ Metaphysics: The Case of Numerical Identity , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[15]  S. Carey,et al.  The Representations Underlying Infants' Choice of More: Object Files Versus Analog Magnitudes , 2002, Psychological science.

[16]  B. Scholl,et al.  Explaining the infant''s object concept: Beyond the perception/cognition dichotomy , 1999 .

[17]  C. D. Olds On the representations, $N_3 \left( {n^2 } \right)$ , 1941 .

[18]  E. Spelke,et al.  Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. , 1995 .

[19]  David E. Irwin,et al.  The role of physical and conceptual properties in preserving object continuity. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  B. Scholl Objects and attention: the state of the art , 2001, Cognition.

[21]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Collisions between Moving Visual Targets: What Controls Alternative Ways of Seeing an Ambiguous Display? , 1999, Perception.

[22]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking Multiple Items Through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Addition and subtraction by human infants , 1992, Nature.

[24]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[25]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Psychological foundations of number: numerical competence in human infants , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Visual surface representation: a critical link between lower-level and higher level vision , 1995 .

[27]  J. Driver,et al.  Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects , 2001, Cognition.

[28]  B. Scholl,et al.  The relationship between object files and conscious perception , 2005, Cognition.

[29]  S Shimojo,et al.  Attentional Modulation in Perception of Visual Motion Events , 1998, Perception.

[30]  B I Bertenthal,et al.  Directional Bias in the Perception of Translating Patterns , 1993, Perception.

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

[32]  J. Henderson,et al.  Two representational systems in dynamic visual identification. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Infants chunk object arrays into sets of individuals , 2004, Cognition.

[34]  B. Scholl,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article ATTENTIVE TRACKING OF OBJECTS VERSUS SUBSTANCES , 2022 .

[35]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Event structure in perception and conception. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.