1 / 45

Attention (in the visual system)

S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. Attention (in the visual system). RESEARCH IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE Sept. 14, 2009. Signe A. Vangkilde, Cand.psych., Ph.d.-stip.

shelly-chen
Télécharger la présentation

Attention (in the visual system)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Attention(in the visual system) RESEARCH IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE Sept. 14, 2009 Signe A. Vangkilde, Cand.psych., Ph.d.-stip. University of CopenhagenCenter for Visual Cognition

  2. “Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrain state …” (James 1890, p. 247) S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Attention

  3. The amount of information that impinges on our sense organs is much larger that what can be handled processed and responded to. Attention is a way of appropriately allocating our limited resources to the relevant stimuli. Attention facilitates the processing of relevant stimuli/thoughts/actions whereas irrelevant ones are ignored. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN A description

  4. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Attention studies use a vast number of different paradigms that mainly focus on: Orientation of attention Focused attention Divided attention Sustained attention However, the distinctions could be drawn differently and the experimental and theoretical tradition that scientists adhere to also counts… Different kinds of attention

  5. Automatic vs. controlled processing Early vs. late selection Parallel vs. serial processing S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Central dichotomies

  6. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Automatic  Controlled

  7. Bottom-up Exogeneous Automatic selection based on salient features: Colour Motion Etc. Task inspecific S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Automatic  Controlled • Top-down • Endogeneous • Voluntary selection based on current goal/task • Task specifik

  8. Automatic (exogeneous) attention S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Target Fixation Cue Valid trial Invalid trial TIME Posner’s spatial cueing paradigm (1980 )

  9. Voluntary (endogeneous) attention S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Target Fixation Cue Valid trial Invalid trial TIME Posner’s spatial cueing paradigm (1980 )

  10. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN SelectionEarly  Late

  11. Auditive attention Cherry (1953) Broadbent (1958) Moray (1959) Deutch & Deutch (1963) Visual attention Treisman (1964) Bundesen (1990) S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Classical studies

  12. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Cocktail Party Effect (Cherry, 1953) Renoir, Le Moulin de la Galette 1876

  13. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Cherry (1953) Dichotic listening: Attend to and shadow (verbally) auditive stream in one ear – ignore stimulation in the other ear Subjects can’t report any input from the unattended ear Dichotic listening / shadowing paradigms

  14. Broadbent (1958) All information enters a sensory buffer The physical characteristics of a stimulus decides whether it passes through the filter and is processed further The input that is filtered out quickly decays and doesn’t put any demands on the processing resources S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Early selection - Filter theory

  15. Moray (1959) … but at a cocktail party we often react to our name or other subjectively relevant stimuli even though we are not attending to the source of these inputs ”Intrusion of the unattended” This suggests that unattended stimuli are indeed processed semantically and not just filtered on the basis of physical features S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Early selection, or?

  16. Deutch & Deutch (1963) Attended and ignored inputs are processed equivalently by the perceptual system, reaching a stage of semantic encoding and analysis Only when the inputs requires a respons selection occurs  limitation concerns the amount of input that can trigger a respons Consequence: Attention does not influence processing S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Late selection

  17. Treisman (1964) Modification of Broadbent’s early selection Deselected stimuli are not completely gated from higher analysis but merely attenuated Attenuation = reduction in the signal strength S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN The Attenuation Theory Attended input Un-attended input Attenuation filter

  18. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN TVAA Theory of Visual AttentionBundesen, 1990Bundesen, Habekost & Kyllingsbæk, 2005

  19. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Task You will be shown a matrix of letters briefly Try to remember as many letters as possible!

  20. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Whole Report H B C K M W L Y Z E X I

  21. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Whole Report ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

  22. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Sperling (1960)

  23. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Textbook model of memory Sensory store Short-term memory Long-term memory Decay

  24. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN A Theory of Visual Attention RACE(between categorizations) Visual inputs Visualshort term memory Visuallong term memory

  25. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Processing speed in the Race Rate equation Weight equation

  26. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Basic Assumptions of TVA • Exponential processing • Parallel independent processing • Limited Visual Short-Term Memory

  27. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Basic Assumptions of TVA • Exponential processing • Parallel independent processing • Limited Visual Short-Term Memory

  28. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Single letter identification Identification of a single masked letter # A 10-200 ms

  29. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Exponential ProcessingBundesen & Harms (Psychological Research 1999) P(report) = 1 – exp (- v * (t - t0)) v = 77 letters/s t0 = 19 ms

  30. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Basic Assumptions of TVA • Exponential processing • Parallel independent processing • Limited Visual Short-Term Memory

  31. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Parallel Independent ProcessingKyllingsbæk & Bundesen (JEP: HPP 2007) & Bundesen, Kyllingsbæk, & Larsen (Psychonomic Bulletin 2003) + + + + F P Keypress Report 29 ms 500 ms TIME

  32. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Basic Assumptions of TVA • Exponential processing • Parallel independent processing • Limited Visual Short-Term Memory

  33. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN The VSTM LimitationSperling (Psychological Monographs 1960)

  34. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Model parameters K VSTM capacity (elements) C Speed of processing (elements/s) t0 Threshold of conscious perception (s) w Attentional weights of different locations  Relative attentional weight of distractors

  35. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN TVA based assessment • Whole report: measures attentional capacity

  36. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Whole report: General attentional capacity

  37. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Whole report: General attentional capacity (shown for 10 – 200 ms)

  38. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Whole report: General attentional capacity ?

  39. Example: Patient ”L4” t0 = 24 ms C= 16 elements / s K = 3.4 elements S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN The whole report function

  40. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN TVA based assessment • Whole report: measures attentional capacity • Partial report: measures attentional weighting

  41. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Partial report: Filtering of distractors (”α”)

  42. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Partial report: Filtering of distractors (”α”)

  43. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Bilateral displays Spatial bias of attentional weighting(”windex”)

  44. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN TVA parameters K VSTM capacity (elements) C Speed of processing (elements/s) t0 Threshold of conscious perception (s) w Spatial bias  Distractibility

  45. S. VANGKILDE CENTER FOR VISUAL COGNITION UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN TVA-based assessment 1999-2009 • Duncan et al. (JEP: General, 1999) Visual neglect • Duncan et al. (Cognitive Neuropsychology 2003) Simultanagnosia • Habekost & Bundesen (Neuropsychologia 2003) Subclinical deficits after stroke • Habekost & Rostrup (Neuropsychologia 2006) Right hemisphere stroke • Peers et al. (Cerebral Cortex 2005) Parietal vs. frontal strokes • Habekost & Rostrup (Neuropsychologia 2007) Right hemisphere stroke • Bublak et al. (JINS 2005) Clinical testing use • Finke et al. (JINS 2005) TVA parameters in normals • Finke et al. (Brain 2006; Neuropsychologia 2007) Huntington’s disease • Bublak et al. (Rest. Neurology & Neurosci 2006) Neurodegenerative disease • Bublak et al. (Neurobiology of Aging, in press) Alzheimer’s and MCI • Hung et al. (Journal of Neuroscience 2005) TMS and visual filtering • Habekost & Starrfelt (Neuropsychologia 2006) Hemianopic alexia • Starrfelt, Habekost, & Leff (Cerebral Cortex, 2009) Pure alexia • Starrfelt, Habekost, & Gerlach (Cortex, 2009) Pure alexia • Matthias et al. (JEP: HPP 2009) Cued alerting • Matthias et al. (Neuropsychologia 2009) Vigilance

More Related