Temporal Binding and Segmentation in Visual Search: A Computational Neuroscience Analysis

Human visual search operates not only over space but also over time, as old items remain in the visual field and new items appear. Preview search (where one set of distractors appears before the onset of a second set) has been used as a paradigm to study search over time and space [Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top–down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90–122, 1997], with participants showing efficient search when old distractors can be ignored and new targets prioritized. The benefits of preview search are lost, however, if a temporal gap is introduced between a first presentation of the old items and the re-presentation of all the items in the search display [Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Smith, K. J. History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture. Psychological Science, 14, 181–185, 2003a], consistent with the old items being bound by temporal onset to the new stimuli. This effect of temporal binding can be eliminated if the old items reappear briefly before the new items, indicating also a role for the memory of the old items. Here we simulate these effects of temporal coding in search using the spiking search over time and space model [Mavritsaki, E., Heinke, D., Allen, H., Deco, G., & Humphreys, G. W. Bridging the gap between physiology and behavior: Evidence from the sSoTS model of human visual attention. Psychological Review, 118, 3–41, 2011]. We show that a form of temporal binding by new onsets has to be introduced to the model to simulate the effects of a temporal gap, but that effects of the memory of the old item can stem from continued neural suppression across a temporal gap. We also show that the model can capture the effects of brain lesion on preview search under the different temporal conditions. The study provides a proof-of-principle analysis that neural suppression and temporal binding can be sufficient to account for human search over time and space.

[1]  Moshe Abeles,et al.  Corticonics: Neural Circuits of Cerebral Cortex , 1991 .

[2]  C. Kennard,et al.  Abnormal temporal dynamics of visual attention in spatial neglect patients , 1997, Nature.

[3]  Lynn C. Robertson,et al.  Visual Search Performance in the Neglect Syndrome , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  Spatial and temporal attention deficits following brain injury: A neuroanatomical decomposition of the temporal order judgement task , 2012, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[5]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Transient binding by time: Neuropsychological evidence from anti-extinction , 2002, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Bridging the gap between physiology and behavior: evidence from the sSoTS model of human visual attention. , 2011, Psychological review.

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

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

[9]  E. Rolls,et al.  Neurodynamics of biased competition and cooperation for attention: a model with spiking neurons. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  R. Luce,et al.  The Choice Axiom after Twenty Years , 1977 .

[11]  Christian N. L. Olivers,et al.  The time course of preview search with color-defined, not luminance-defined, stimuli , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  P. Bartolomeo,et al.  White matter lesional predictors of chronic visual neglect: a longitudinal study. , 2015, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[14]  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.

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

[16]  J Theeuwes,et al.  Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[18]  D. C. Howell,et al.  Comparing an Individual's Test Score Against Norms Derived from Small Samples , 1998 .

[19]  G. Humphreys,et al.  An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: Evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[23]  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.

[24]  G. Humphreys,et al.  A case of integrative visual agnosia. , 1987, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  Johan Hulleman,et al.  Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: New onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  Christian N L Olivers,et al.  Spatiotemporal segregation in visual search: evidence from parietal lesions. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  A computational model of visual marking using an inter-connected network of spiking neurons: The spiking search over time & space model (sSoTS) , 2006, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[28]  Marius Usher,et al.  Visual synchrony affects binding and segmentation in perception , 1998, Nature.

[29]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  Visual change with moving displays: more evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Erratum to: Effects of neuromodulation in a cortical network model of object working memory dominated by recurrent inhibition , 2014, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[31]  P. Matthews,et al.  A neural marker of content-specific active ignoring. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[33]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[34]  S. Yantis,et al.  Object continuity in apparent motion and attention. , 1994, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[35]  Synchronization and Stimulus Timing: Implications for Temporal Models of Visual Information Processing , 2018 .

[36]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Simulating posterior parietal damage in a biologically plausible framework: Neuropsychological tests of the search over time and space model , 2009, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[37]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.5 The ‘when ’ pathway of the right parietal lobe , 2022 .

[38]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  History Matters , 2003, Psychological science.

[39]  J. Riddoch,et al.  Stored color–form knowledge modulates perceptual sensitivity in search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[40]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  The ‘when’ parietal pathway explored by lesion studies , 2008, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[41]  Christina J. Howard,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Temporal Resolution of Attention. , 2016, Cerebral cortex.

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