Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16617826

Grouping does not require attention.

Abstract

Many theories of visual perception stipulate that Gestalt grouping occurs preattentively. Subjects' failure to report perceiving even salient grouping patterns under conditions of inattention challenges this assumption (see, e.g., Mack, Tang, Tuma, Kahn, & Rock, 1992), but Moore and Egeth (1997) showed that although subjects are indeed unable to identify grouping patterns outside the focus of attention, effects of these patterns on visual perception can be observed when they are assessed using implicit, rather than explicit, measures. However, this finding, which is the only one to date demonstrating grouping effects without attention, is open to an alternative account. In the present study, we eliminated this confound and replicated Moore and Egeth's findings, using the Müller-Lyer illusion (Experiments 1 and 2). Moreover, we found converging evidence for these findings with a variant of the flanker task (Experiment 3), when the amount of available attentional resources was varied (Experiments 4 and 5). The results reinforce the idea that, although grouping outside the focus of attention cannot be the object of overt report, grouping processes can occur without attention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dominique Lamy, Hannah Segal, Lital Ruderman. 2006. Grouping does not require attention.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193652

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Unified structural equation modeling approach for the analysis of multisubject, multivariate functional MRI data.

The ultimate goal of brain connectivity studies is to propose, test, modify, and compare certain directional brain pathways. Path analysis or structural equation modeling (SEM) is an ideal statistical method for such studies. In this work, we propose a two-stage unified SEM plus GLM (General Linear Model) approach for the analysis of multisubject, multivariate functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) time series data with subject-level covariates. In Stage 1, we analyze the fMRI multivariate time series for each subject individually via a unified SEM model by combining longitudinal pathways represented by a multivariate autoregressive (MAR) model, and contemporaneous pathways represented by a conventional SEM. In Stage 2, the resulting subject-level path coefficients are merged with subject-level covariates such as gender, age, IQ, etc., to examine the impact of these covariates on effective connectivity via a GLM. Our approach is exemplified via the analysis of an fMRI visual attention experiment. Furthermore, the significant path network from the unified SEM analysis is compared to that from a conventional SEM analysis without incorporating the longitudinal information as well as that from a Dynamic Causal Modeling (DCM) approach.

Attention↗

Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return.

It has been demonstrated that the human visual field shows some functional inhomogeneities, in particular when the central and perifoveal regions are compared to the more peripheral regions. The present study examined this inhomogeneity by examining the effect of stimulus eccentricity on inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon that biases our attention towards novel locations against returning it back to previously attended locations. Eighteen subjects were examined in a visual detection task, in which a target appeared randomly following a nonpredictive spatial cue in the visual field. The eccentricities of the cues and targets were systematically manipulated from 5 degrees to 30 degrees with 5 degrees increments. Results showed that response times to targets that appeared at cued locations were significantly slower than those at uncued locations for all stimulus eccentricities, demonstrating the IOR effects. However, response times at cued locations increased significantly when stimulus eccentricity shifted from 15 degrees to 20 degrees, leading to a much stronger IOR effect at more peripheral regions compared to central and perifoveal regions, indicating a functional dissociation between these two regions of the visual field. Possible neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation are discussed, and two attention systems modulating the two functional regions of the visual field are put forward to best account the present finding implicating in particular midbrain mechanism.

Attention↗