Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
First, when a top-down model of perception is adopted, the ability of perceivers to make
immediate sense of unexpected stimuli is poorly explained. When changing television channels, we are
immediately able to perceive the content of the picture on the screen, even though it has no perceptual
or semantic relationship to what has come before it.
Second, Neisser contended that systems do not exist within the nervous system to filter out a portion
of the sensory input. He stated that such mechanisms have neither biological nor psychological reality.
The biological evidence suggests that both selection (or pickup) and filtering (or inhibition) are ele-
ments of the neurophysiology of visual perception. The filtering and selection of stimuli constitutes a
basic design principle within the visual system at a neuronal level (see Chapter 7). Stimuli or channels
that are selected on the basis of task demands evoke very different physiological responses during
the early stages of perception.
Schema models, as articulated by Neisser, emphasize the role of the perceiver in selecting informa-
tion in the environment and define attentional focus as a function of schema. Much of Neissers cri-
tique of filtering makes semantic rather than functional distinctions. Formally speaking, the schema
model may also be described as requiring the filtering of unattended-to information, but Neisser
argued against the need for an active process to inhibit the awareness of irrelevant information. In a
certain sense, filter and schema models may describe complementary processes. Filter theory may
describe the systems whose current operating characteristics are set by schemata. Although Neisser
denied that such filter systems are necessary, physiological as well as psychophysical evidence has
been accrued that points to their reality. In combination, these two theoretical currents give a more
comprehensive view of the role of attention: Schemata determine why something is selected for atten-
tion, and filter theories describe how this happens and what constraints exist in comprehending the
diversity of the signals that are presented by the environment.
Recent perceptual theorists have tried to distinguish properties that are automatically evaluated by
the perceptual system and properties that require attention or effort to discriminate. Julesz, for exam-
ple, contrasted the automatic, preattentive segregation of the visual field on the basis of texture with
the serial, focal attention used to search for specific objects within the visual field [23]. Textural ele-
ments may be quite complex in appearance and may vary in orientation yet may still be automatically
grouped together. Objects of focal attention may be physically dissimilar and distributed across the
visual field but may nevertheless be grouped by category membership. Treisman [8, 16] argued that
preattentive vision extracts a set of simple features, including color, size, contrast, orientation, curva-
ture, line ends, and stereoscopic depth across the whole visual field. Objects that differ in a single
simple feature are automatically discriminated (e.g., a green circle will perceptually pop out of a
group of orange circles). Focal attention to a circumscribed location is required to identify an object
on the basis of conjunctions of features, however. It takes effort, for example, to locate green squares
amid a field of green circles and orange squares. The object, in this case, is defined by the conjunction
of greenness and squareness. In order to examine a visual field for a conjunction of features, therefore,
a viewer would need to search areas of the visual field sequentially. One appeal of Treismans model
is that simple features, perceptually defined, may be associated with specific populations of feature-
sensitive neurons identified in the occipital cortex. An argument against this model is the observation
that figures emerge from ground on the basis of conjunctions of many different features; yet this pro-
cess is ordinarily very fast and effortless (i.e., preattentive).
Direction of the attention to different locations in the visual field has been likened to a spotlight
that enhances the efficiency of the detection of events within the beam [19, 24]. The direction in which
the spotlight is directed is usually correlated with foveal position, but its effects can also be appreci-
ated at more peripheral locations through experimental manipulations. This finding suggests that the
spotlight is generated by analysis late in visual processing. As will be discussed in much greater detail
in subsequent chapters, laboratory experiments involving primates and lesion studies indicate that the
parietal lobe and several subcortical centers are involved in the movement of the attentional spotlight
across the visual field [2528].
Most studies of visual selective attention have used static visual displays. However, when consid-
ering attention in everyday life, this is generally not the case. To illustrate this, Neisser conducted an
experiment in which people responded to significant events in one sports game that was superimposed
over the image of a different sports game presented on the same viewing screen [20]. Subjects in the
study were very effective in following and responding to the specified game, while ignoring the other
game. Subjectively, the viewers were hardly aware of the ignored game. Neisser argued that these
findings show that selective attention cannot be attributed to differences between the attended-to and
ignored games in their physical features or spatial origin, but rather are influenced by expectancies
and understanding of the visual continuities of a sports game. The study illustrates that following
visual events with temporal extension demands the same kind of exclusive attention that listening to
continuous discourse requires.
In summary, selective attention in visual processing seems to occur late in the perceptual interpre-
tation of a visual field. In fact, the integration of a visual scene may occur with little attentional selec-
tion. Visual selection takes place after extensive preattentive analysis and organization of the visual
field, which occurs rapidly, automatically, and in parallel. Visual selection is required by tasks that
involve the location of specific conjunctions of features or objects not isolated by preattentive pro-
cesses. Visual selection over a static display entails scanning over sections of the visual field, a pro-
cess that has been likened to the use of an attentional beam or spotlight. Spatial attention can be
directed to specific sections of the visual field and can enhance later detection performance. Selective
attention is also required for viewing a complex sequence of events over time, but the mechanisms
that allow effective selection are unknown.
Models of Selective Attention 33