Top

Gepubliceerd in:

25-05-2019 | Original Article

What was that object? On the role of identity information in the formation of object files and conscious object perception

Auteur: Stephanie C. Goodhew

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2020

Abstract

Object files are a psychological representation that allows the human brain to keep track of objects, as they move and change across time. The question regarding what information is used to individuate versus update object files has been the focus of considerable scientific debate. Historically, the role of an object’s spatiotemporal history was emphasised, whereas more recent work has demonstrated a key contribution from surface features, such as colour. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of identity-level information in the formation and individuation of object files, and how it compares to the contribution of featural information. Using a modified spatial repetition-blindness paradigm, across four experiments, there was convergent evidence that surface features contribute to the formation of object files, whereas the role of identity information was at best much smaller and less reliable than the clear contribution from surface features, and the most parsimonious explanation is that it was not present at all.

vorige artikel Does training mental rotation transfer to gains in mathematical competence? Assessment of an at-home visuospatial intervention

volgende artikel David and Goliath—size does matter: size modulates feature–response binding of irrelevant features

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Alais, D., & Lorenceau, J. (2002). Perceptual grouping in the ternus display: evidence for an “association field” in apparent motion. Vision Research, 42(8), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989%2802%2900021-4.PubMedCrossRef

Argyropoulos, I., Gellatly, A., Pilling, M., & Carter, W. (2013). Set size and mask duration do not interact in object-substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030240.PubMedCrossRef

Bavelier, D. (1994). Repetition blindness between visually different items: the case of pictures and words. Cognition, 51(3), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90054-X.PubMedCrossRef

Bouvier, S., & Treisman, A. (2010). Visual feature binding requires reentry. Psychological Science, 21(2), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357858.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Chen, Z., & Treisman, A. (2009). Implicit perception and level of processing in object-substitution masking. Psychological Science, 20(5), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02328.x.PubMedCrossRef

Chun, M. M., & Cavanagh, P. (1997). Seeing two as one: linking apparent motion and repetition blindness. Psychological Science, 8(2), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00686.x.CrossRef

Clay, F., Bowers, J. S., Davis, C. J., & Hanley, D. A. (2007). Teaching adults new words: the role of practice and consolidation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 970–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.970.PubMedCrossRef

Coslett, H. B., & Lie, E. (2008). Simultanagnosia: effects of semantic category and repetition blindness. Neuropsychologia, 46(7), 1853–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.024.PubMedCrossRef

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: a simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042.CrossRef

Dux, P. E., & Coltheart, V. (2008). Repetition blindness and repetition priming: Effects of featural differences between targets and distractors on RSVP dual-target search. Mem Cogn, 36(4), 776–790. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.776.CrossRef

Filmer, H. L., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2014). Size (mostly) doesn’t matter: the role of set size in object substitution masking. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 76(6), 1620–1629. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0692-5.CrossRef

Filmer, H. L., Wells-Peris, R., & Dux, P. E. (2017). The role of executive attention in object substitution masking. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 79(4), 1070–1077. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1302-0.CrossRef

Flombaum, J. I., Scholl, B. J., & Santos, L. R. (2009). Spatiotemporal priority as a fundamental principle of object persistence. In B. Hood & L. Santos (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldfarb, L., & Sabah, K. (2016). Multidimensional representation of objects—the influence of task demands. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(2), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0894-4.PubMedCrossRef

Goldfarb, L., & Treisman, A. (2011a). Does a color difference between parts impair the perception of a whole? A similarity between simultanagnosia patients and healthy observers. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(5), 877. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0123-8.PubMedCrossRef

Goldfarb, L., & Treisman, A. (2011b). Repetition blindness: The survival of the grouped. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(6), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0135-4.PubMedCrossRef

Goodhew, S. C. (2017). What have we learned from two decades of object-substitution masking? Time to update: Object individuation prevails over substitution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(6), 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000395.PubMedCrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Dux, P. E., Lipp, O. V., & Visser, T. A. W. (2012). Understanding recovery from object substitution masking. Cognition, 122(3), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.010.PubMedCrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., & Edwards, M. (2016). Object individuation is invariant to attentional diffusion: changes in the size of the attended region do not interact with object-substitution masking. Cognition, 157, 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.006.PubMedCrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Edwards, M., Boal, H. L., & Bell, J. (2015). Two objects or one? Similarity rather than complexity determines objecthood when resolving dynamic input. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000022.PubMedCrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Greenwood, J. A., & Edwards, M. (2016). Categorical information influences conscious perception: an interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 78(4), 1186–1202. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1073-z.CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Kendall, W., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2014). Setting semantics: conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention. Attent Percept Psycho, 76(6), 1577–1589. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0686-3.CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Visser, T. A. W., Lipp, O. V., & Dux, P. E. (2011). Implicit semantic perception in object substitution masking. Cognition, 118(1), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.013.CrossRef

Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (1996). What’s in an object file? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 58, 1260–1277.CrossRef

Guest, D., Gellatly, A., & Pilling, M. (2012). Reduced OSM for long duration targets: Individuation or items loaded into VSTM? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1541–1553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027031.PubMedCrossRef

Harris, I. M., Wong, C., & Andrews, S. (2015). Visual field asymmetries in object individuation. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.09.004.PubMedCrossRef

Hein, E., & Cavanagh, P. (2012). Motion correspondence in the ternus display shows feature bias in spatiotopic coordinates. Journal of Vision, 12(7), 16. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.7.16.PubMedCrossRef

Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2012). Spatio-temporal priority revisited: The role of feature identity and similarity for object correspondence in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028197.PubMedCrossRef

Hollingworth, A., & Franconeri, S. L. (2009). Object correspondence across brief occlusion is established on the basis of both spatiotemporal and surface feature cues. Cognition, 113(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.004.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285%2892%2990007-O.PubMedCrossRef

Kanwisher, N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recogniton without token individuation. Cognition, 27(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277%2887%2990016-3.PubMedCrossRef

Kanwisher, N. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: errors in binding visual types with visual tokens. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(2), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.404.PubMedCrossRef

Kanwisher, N., Driver, J., & Machado, L. (1995). Spatial repetition blindness is moduated by selective attention to color or shape. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 303–337. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1995.1017.PubMedCrossRef

Kanwisher, N., & Potter, M. C. (1989). Repetition blindness: The effects of stimulus modality and spatial displacement. Memory and Cognition, 17(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197061.PubMedCrossRef

Kim, J., Jeng, K., & Anderson, B. (2013). Amodal completion is modulated by lightness similarity. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0540-z.PubMedCrossRef

Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.106.PubMedCrossRef

Luiga, I., & Bachmann, T. (2008). Luminance processing in object substitution masking. Vision Research, 48(7), 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.01.001.PubMedCrossRef

Luo, C. R., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Repetition blindness under minimum memory load: Effects of spatial and temporal proximity and the encoding effectiveness of the first item. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 57(7), 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205464.CrossRef

Luo, C. R., & Caramazza, A. (1996). Temporal and spatial repetition blindness: Effects of presentation mode and repetition lag on the perception of repeated items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.95.PubMedCrossRef

Marohn, K. M., & Hochhaus, L. (1988). Different-case repetition still leads to perceptual blindness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(1), 29–31. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334851.CrossRef

Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1171–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1171.PubMedCrossRef

Moore, C. M., Stephens, T., & Hein, E. (2010). Features, as well as space and time, guide object persistence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(5), 731–736. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.731.PubMedCrossRef

Morris, A. L., & Still, M. L. (2008). Now you see it, now you don’t: repetition blindness for nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.146.PubMedCrossRef

Most, S. B. (2013). Setting sights higher: Category-level attentional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Research, 77(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0379-7.PubMedCrossRef

Parasuraman, R., & Martin, A. (2001). Interaction of semantic and perceptual processes in repetition blindness. Visual Cognition, 8(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000045.CrossRef

Petersik, J., & Rice, C. M. (2008). Spatial correspondence and relation correspondence: Grouping factors that influence perception of the ternus display. Perception, 37(5), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5900.PubMedCrossRef

Pilling, M., & Gellatly, A. (2010). Object substitution masking and the object updating hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(5), 737–742. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.737.PubMedCrossRef

Pilling, M., Gellatly, A., Argyropoulos, Y., & Skarratt, P. (2014). Exogenous spatial precuing reliably modulates object processing but not object substitution masking. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 76(6), 1560–1576. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0661-z.CrossRef

Prinzmetal, W., McCool, C., & Park, S. (2005). Attention: Reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.73.CrossRef

Reiss, J. E., & Hoffman, J. E. (2006). Object substitution masking interferes with semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1015–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01820.x.PubMedCrossRef

Reiss, J. E., & Hoffman, J. E. (2007). Disruption of early face recognition processes by object substitution masking. Visual Cognition, 15(7), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280701307035.CrossRef

Richard, A. M., Luck, S. J., & Hollingworth, A. (2008). Establishing object correspondence across eye movements: Flexible use of spatiotemporal and surface feature information. Cognition, 109(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.004.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Shapiro, K., Driver, J., Ward, R., & Sorensen, R. E. (1997). Priming from the attentional blink: A failure to extract visual tokens but not visual types. Psychological Science, 8, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00689.x.CrossRef

Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285%2882%2990006-8.PubMedCrossRef

Wyble, B., Bowman, H., & Potter, M. C. (2009). Categorically defined targets trigger spatiotemporal visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013903.PubMedCrossRef

Wyble, B., Folk, C., & Potter, M. (2013). Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 861–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030517.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: What was that object? On the role of identity information in the formation of object files and conscious object perception
Auteur: Stephanie C. Goodhew
Publicatiedatum: 25-05-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01200-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2020

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

Measuring approach–avoidance tendencies towards food with touchscreen-based arm movements

My future is brighter than yours: the positivity bias in episodic future thinking and future self-images

The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching: a diffusion model analysis

Pointing movements and visuo-spatial working memory in a joint setting: the role of motor inhibition

Exploring attentional focus of older adult fallers during heightened postural threat