Regular ArticleLinguistic and Conceptual Control of Visual Spatial Attention
References (0)
Cited by (167)
Attentional semantics of deictic locatives
2023, LinguaThe Perception of Relations
2021, Trends in Cognitive SciencesSame-different conceptualization: a machine vision perspective
2021, Current Opinion in Behavioral SciencesA cellular and attentional network explanation of consciousness
2020, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :Even in top-down attention, stimuli can be processed preconsciously with a minimal level of attention, as can be seen in experiments on implicit learning and Stroop effect (Hartman, Knopman, & Nissen, 1987), dichotic listening and shadowing tasks (MacKay, 1973; Treisman, 1964), and visual masking (Marcel, 1983). And in some experiments (Logan, 1995; Neuman, 1984), subjects are known to pay marginal attention to stimuli they have been instructed to ignore. This marginal attention is achieved by widely distributing the focus of attention, as Marchetti (2012) explains, and experiments by McCormick (1997) exemplify.
Spatial language difficulties reflect the structure of intact spatial representation: Evidence from high-functioning autism
2020, Cognitive PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Nevertheless, we believe that our data strongly suggest that axial structure plays a role in both language and non-linguistic spatial memory—at least in the tasks we used—and that therefore, the two systems do indeed share spatial structure. In addition, we also observed the effects of Direction in both language and memory, suggesting that direction representation was more fragile than the representation of the axis, in line with previous findings (Carlson-Radvansky & Jiang, 1998; Landau & Hoffman, 2005; Logan, 1995; McCloskey & Rapp, 2000; McCloskey et al., 1995). Specifically, we observed that recall of the correct direction within the axis was more difficult compared to the recall of the correct axis.
Does direction matter? Linguistic asymmetries reflected in visual attention
2019, CognitionCitation Excerpt :Regier and Carlson (2001) motivate their implementation of attention in the AVS model via a spotlight metaphor by calling the attentional distribution in the AVS model an “attentional beam” (Regier & Carlson, 2001, p. 277–278). Moreover, they refer to Logan (1994, 1995) who developed a theory of the apprehension of spatial relations and remark “that in several neural subsystems, overall direction is represented as the vector sum of a set of constituent directions” (p. 277, emphasis in the original, relevant references cited: Georgopoulos et al., 1986; Lee et al., 1988; Wilson & Kim, 1994). The explicit conceptualization of the vector sum in terms of attention, however, remains unclear.