The countervailing forces of binding and selection in vision

Adam C. Snyder, John J. Foxe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evidence indicates that when one feature of an object is specifically attended, other task-irrelevant features of that object also receive enhanced processing, presumably as a result of automatic binding processes. On the other hand, evidence also shows that attention can be selectively biased in favor of processing one feature at the expense of processing others. Thus, binding invokes combinatorial processing of related features whereas selective attention emphasizes differential processing. We hypothesized that binding and selective feature-based attention depend on a common resource and therefore might show interference effects. The current study tested this by manipulating binding demands while human participants directed their attention to the color or motion of moving random dot stimuli. Response time measures showed that effects of biased attention were reduced when binding demands were increased. This finding supports the thesis that binding relies, at least in part, upon the same mechanisms invoked by preparatory biasing of selective attention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1035-1042
Number of pages8
JournalCortex
Volume48
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Reaction Time
Color
Selective Attention
Attentional Bias
Interference
Response Time
Stimulus
Resources

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Biasing
  • Feature-based selection
  • Object-processing
  • Suppression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Neurology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

The countervailing forces of binding and selection in vision. / Snyder, Adam C.; Foxe, John J.

In: Cortex, Vol. 48, No. 8, 09.2012, p. 1035-1042.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Snyder, Adam C. ; Foxe, John J. / The countervailing forces of binding and selection in vision. In: Cortex. 2012 ; Vol. 48, No. 8. pp. 1035-1042.
@article{d3dd2c10ecf6423ebeb1bbfbc2114c16,
title = "The countervailing forces of binding and selection in vision",
abstract = "Evidence indicates that when one feature of an object is specifically attended, other task-irrelevant features of that object also receive enhanced processing, presumably as a result of automatic binding processes. On the other hand, evidence also shows that attention can be selectively biased in favor of processing one feature at the expense of processing others. Thus, binding invokes combinatorial processing of related features whereas selective attention emphasizes differential processing. We hypothesized that binding and selective feature-based attention depend on a common resource and therefore might show interference effects. The current study tested this by manipulating binding demands while human participants directed their attention to the color or motion of moving random dot stimuli. Response time measures showed that effects of biased attention were reduced when binding demands were increased. This finding supports the thesis that binding relies, at least in part, upon the same mechanisms invoked by preparatory biasing of selective attention.",
keywords = "Attention, Biasing, Feature-based selection, Object-processing, Suppression",
author = "Snyder, {Adam C.} and Foxe, {John J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "1035--1042",
journal = "Cortex",
issn = "0010-9452",
publisher = "Masson SpA",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The countervailing forces of binding and selection in vision

AU - Snyder, Adam C.

AU - Foxe, John J.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Evidence indicates that when one feature of an object is specifically attended, other task-irrelevant features of that object also receive enhanced processing, presumably as a result of automatic binding processes. On the other hand, evidence also shows that attention can be selectively biased in favor of processing one feature at the expense of processing others. Thus, binding invokes combinatorial processing of related features whereas selective attention emphasizes differential processing. We hypothesized that binding and selective feature-based attention depend on a common resource and therefore might show interference effects. The current study tested this by manipulating binding demands while human participants directed their attention to the color or motion of moving random dot stimuli. Response time measures showed that effects of biased attention were reduced when binding demands were increased. This finding supports the thesis that binding relies, at least in part, upon the same mechanisms invoked by preparatory biasing of selective attention.

AB - Evidence indicates that when one feature of an object is specifically attended, other task-irrelevant features of that object also receive enhanced processing, presumably as a result of automatic binding processes. On the other hand, evidence also shows that attention can be selectively biased in favor of processing one feature at the expense of processing others. Thus, binding invokes combinatorial processing of related features whereas selective attention emphasizes differential processing. We hypothesized that binding and selective feature-based attention depend on a common resource and therefore might show interference effects. The current study tested this by manipulating binding demands while human participants directed their attention to the color or motion of moving random dot stimuli. Response time measures showed that effects of biased attention were reduced when binding demands were increased. This finding supports the thesis that binding relies, at least in part, upon the same mechanisms invoked by preparatory biasing of selective attention.

KW - Attention

KW - Biasing

KW - Feature-based selection

KW - Object-processing

KW - Suppression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863778309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863778309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.003

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 1035

EP - 1042

JO - Cortex

JF - Cortex

SN - 0010-9452

IS - 8

ER -