CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,385Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection

Open access
Theeuwes, Jan·2010·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present paper argues for the notion that when attention is spread across the visual field in the first sweep of information through the brain visual selection is completely stimulus-driven. Only later in time, through recurrent feedback processing, volitional control based on expectancy and goal set will bias visual selection in a top-down manner. Here we review behavioral evidence as well as evidence from ERP, fMRI, TMS and single cell recording consistent with stimulus-driven selection. Alternative viewpoints that assume a large role for top-down processing are discussed. It is argued that in most cases evidence supporting top-down control on visual selection in fact demonstrates top-down control on processes occurring later in time, following initial selection. We conclude that top-down knowledge regarding non-spatial features of the objects cannot alter the initial selection priority. Only by adjusting the size of the attentional window, the initial sweep of information through the brain may be altered in a top-down way.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006

Cites

178 of 178 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All models of selective attention describe attentional control as the result of interplay between voluntary top-down/goal-driven control and automatic bottom-up/stimulus-driven control.

    “All models of selective attention have described attentional control as the result of the above described interplay between voluntary, top-down, or goal-driven control and automatic, bottom-up, or stimulus driven control (e.g., Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Itti & Koch, 2001; Theeuwes, 2010).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes, 2010

    The Introduction (page not supplied) describes voluntary top-down and automatic bottom-up control as competing accounts of attentional selection. The Abstract and §3.1 (pages not supplied) describe roles for both, but specify that initial selection is stimulus-driven and top-down influence comes later. The paper does not support the claim that all models describe selection as an interplay of the two. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The relative rapid-acting nature of the reward-based selection history bias may explain why it oftentimes escapes top-down attentional control and explicit awareness.

    “The relative rapid-acting nature of the reward-based selection history bias may also explain why it oftentimes escapes top-down attentional control and explicit awareness (cf. Theeuwes, 2010).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes, 2010

    The Introduction and §3.1 describe initial visual selection as preceding later top-down control, and §3.2.1.2 describes inter-trial priming as automatic and largely unaffected by top-down set. These passages support the proposed timing-based explanation by analogy, but the paper does not establish it for reward-based selection history or address whether that bias escapes explicit awareness. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Top-down attentional control is volitional and under the control of the observer at any given point in time.

    “This so-called top-down (also called endogenous or goal-directed) attentional control is thought to be volitional and under the control of the observer at any given point in time (Posner, 1980; Treisman & Gelade, 1980; Theeuwes, 2010; Wolfe, 2007; Yantis, 2000).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes, 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Duncan, J. (1985). Visual search and visual attention. In M. I. Posner, & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance, Vol. XI. (pp. 85-106)Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Hickey, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abstract. Journal of Vision, 8(6).
  3. A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
  4. Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottum-up guidance in visual search for feature singeltons. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(2), 483-502.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Theeuwes, J.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Theeuwes, Jan
ORCID
Theeuwes, Jan
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
135
Issue
2
Pages
77-99
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006
OpenAlex
W2106516151
Cited by
1,385
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 95 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 64
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual selection, top-down control, bottom-up control, recurrent feedback, expectancy, top-down attention, attentional window, visual attention
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cues, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Models, Psychological, Set, Psychology, Visual Perception, Volition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review