Negative priming of unattended part primes: Implications for models of holistic and analytic processing in object recognition

Abstract

The “hybrid” model of object recognition (Hummel, 2001) proposes that unattended objects are processed holistically, while attended objects are processed both holistically and analytically. Supporting evidence for this claim was reported by Thoma, Hummel, and Davidoff (2004) who showed that, unlike whole object primes, unattended split object parts (presumed to require analytic processing) do not elicit repetition priming. Here we tested the generality of this finding by contrasting priming for whole and part prime stimuli as a function of prime informativeness and by modifying the design so that both unattended whole and part prime displays contained a single perceptual object. Unlike Thoma et al. (2004) the results showed negative (rather than an absence of) priming for unattended half object primes. These findings place new constraints on theoretical models of the role of attention in object recognition.

Keywords

Object recognition Negative priming Attention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dux

P. E.

Harris

I. M.

(2007). Viewpoint costs occur during consolidation: Evidence from the attentional blink. Cognition 104, 1 47–58.

Harris

I. M.

Dux

P. E.

Benito

C. T.

Leek

E. C.

(2008). Orientation sensitivity at different stages of object processing: Evidence from repetition priming and naming. PloS One 3, 5 e2256.

Houghton

Tipper

S. P.

(1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language. Dagenbach

Carr

T. H.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press 53–112.

Hummel

J. E.

(2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition 8, 489–517.

Hummel

J. E.

(2003). The complementary properties of holistic and analytic representations of shape. Perception of faces, objects and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes. Peterson

M. A.

Rhodes

New York: Oxford University Press.

Hummel

J. E.

Biederman

(1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review 99, 480–517.

Hummel

J. E.

Stankiewicz

B. J.

(1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. Attention and Performance. XVI: On information integration in perception and communication. Inui

McCelland

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 93–121.

Hummel

J. E.

Stankiewicz

B. J.

(1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition 5, 49–79.

Leek

E. C.

Reppa

Tipper

S. P.

(2003). Inhibition-of-return for objects and locations in static displays. Perception and Psychophysics 65, 388–395.

10.

Murray

J. E.

(1995). Negative priming by rotated objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2, 534–537.

11.

Park

Kanwisher

(1994). Negative priming for spatial locations: Identity mismatching, not distractor inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 613–623.

12.

Snodgrass

J. G.

Vanderwart

(1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6, 174–215.

13.

Thoma

Davidoff

Hummel

J. E.

(2007). Priming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity. Visual Cognition 15, 179–210.

14.

Thoma

Hummel

J. E.

Davidoff

(2004). Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representation of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30, 257–267.

15.

Tipper

S. P.

(1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 37A, 571–590.

16.

Tipper

S. P.

(2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 54A, 321–343.

17.

Vecera

S. P.

Behrmann

Filapek

J. C.

(2001). Attending to the parts of a single object: Part-based selection limitations. Perception & Psychophysics 63, 308–321.