We used visual extinction as a method for investigating the influence of objects on selective visual attention Two subjects demonstrating extinction following damage to right parietal cortex were tested in a simple detection task The task required only that subjects detect the presence or absence of any item in the left and right visual fields Both subjects showed an advantage for good objects in the impaired field However, this advantage for good objects held only in the presence of a simultaneous stimulus in the undamaged field We suggest that objects are not simply easier to detect than nonobjects, instead we argue that objects are stronger competitors for attentional selection
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BehrmannM.MoscovitchM.BlackS.E.MozerM. (1990). and conceptual mechanisms in neglect dyslexia. Two contrasting case-students. Brain1131163–1183.
2.
BehrmannM.MoscovitchM.MozerM.C. (1991). Directing attention to words and nonwords in normal subjects and in a computational model. Implications for neglect dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology8213–248.
3.
BenderM.B. (1952). Disorders in perception. Springfield, ILCharles C Thomas.
4.
BistachE.VallarG. (1988). Hemineglect in humans. InBollerF.ManJ. Graf, (Eds), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 1pp.195–222) AmsterdamElseviter.
5.
BrunnJ.I.FarahM.J. (1991). The relation between spatial attention and reading. Evidence from the neglect syndrome. Cognitive Neuropvychology859–75.
6.
BundesenC. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review97523–547.
7.
CaveK.R.WolfeJ.M. (1990). Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search. Cognitive Psychology22225–271.
8.
DuncanJ. (1985). Visual search and visual attention. InPosnerM.I.MartnO.S.M., (Eds), Attention and performance XI (pp.85–104) Hillsdale, NJErlbaum.
9.
DuncanJ. (in press) Cooperating brain system in selective perception and action. InInuT.McClellandJ.L., (Eds), Attention and performance XVICambridge, MAMIT Press.
10.
EnnsJ.T.PrinzmetalW. (1984). The role of redundancy in the object-line effect. Perception & Psychophysics3322–32.
11.
FarahM.J.WallaceM.A.VeceraS.P. (1993). What and where in visual attention. Fvidence form the neglect syndrome. InRobertsonI.H.MarshallJ.C., (Eds), Unilateral neglect Clinical and experimental studies (pp.123–137) Hove, EnglandErlbaum.
12.
HumphreysG.W.FreemanT.A.C.MullerH.J. (1992). Lestoning a connectionist model of visual-search. Selective effects of distractor grouping. Canadian Journal of Psychology46417–460.
13.
HumphreysG.W.RiddochM.J. (1993). Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology. InMeyerD.E.KornblumS., (Eds), Attention and performance XIV (pp.143–162) Hillsdale, NJErlbaum.
14.
HumphreysG.W.RomamC.OlsonA.RiddochM.J.DuncanJ. (1994). Non spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans. Nature372357–359.
15.
McClellandJ.L.MillerJ. (1979). Structural factors in figure perception. Perception & Psychophysics26221–229.
16.
MozerM.C. (1991). The perception of multiple objects. A connectionist approach. Cambridge, MAMIT Press.
17.
NetssserU. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New Yorkappletion-Century-Crofts.
ReingoldE.M.JolicoeurP. (1993). Perceptual versus postperceptual mediation of visual context effects. Evidence from the letter-superiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics53166–178.
21.
WardR.GoodrichS.J.DriverJ. (1994). Grouping reduces visual extinction. Neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection. Visual Cognition1101–129.
