↓ Skip to main content

Rethinking the Role of Top-Down Attention in Vision: Effects Attributable to a Lossy Representation in Peripheral Vision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rethinking the Role of Top-Down Attention in Vision: Effects Attributable to a Lossy Representation in Peripheral Vision
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Rosenholtz, Jie Huang, Krista A. Ehinger

Abstract

According to common wisdom in the field of visual perception, top-down selective attention is required in order to bind features into objects. In this view, even simple tasks, such as distinguishing a rotated T from a rotated L, require selective attention since they require feature binding. Selective attention, in turn, is commonly conceived as involving volition, intention, and at least implicitly, awareness. There is something non-intuitive about the notion that we might need so expensive (and possibly human) a resource as conscious awareness in order to perform so basic a function as perception. In fact, we can carry out complex sensorimotor tasks, seemingly in the near absence of awareness or volitional shifts of attention ("zombie behaviors"). More generally, the tight association between attention and awareness, and the presumed role of attention on perception, is problematic. We propose that under normal viewing conditions, the main processes of feature binding and perception proceed largely independently of top-down selective attention. Recent work suggests that there is a significant loss of information in early stages of visual processing, especially in the periphery. In particular, our texture tiling model (TTM) represents images in terms of a fixed set of "texture" statistics computed over local pooling regions that tile the visual input. We argue that this lossy representation produces the perceptual ambiguities that have previously been as ascribed to a lack of feature binding in the absence of selective attention. At the same time, the TTM representation is sufficiently rich to explain performance in such complex tasks as scene gist recognition, pop-out target search, and navigation. A number of phenomena that have previously been explained in terms of voluntary attention can be explained more parsimoniously with the TTM. In this model, peripheral vision introduces a specific kind of information loss, and the information available to an observer varies greatly depending upon shifts of the point of gaze (which usually occur without awareness). The available information, in turn, provides a key determinant of the visual system's capabilities and deficiencies. This scheme dissociates basic perceptual operations, such as feature binding, from both top-down attention and conscious awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 2%
United States 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 202 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 18%
Researcher 39 18%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 25 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 90 41%
Neuroscience 22 10%
Computer Science 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 4%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 32 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2023.
All research outputs
#5,614,536
of 23,485,296 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,037
of 31,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,015
of 247,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#138
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,296 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.