The implementation of visual routines
Open accessAbstract
Many visual tasks can be decomposed into a sequence of simpler subtasks. Ullman suggested that such subtasks are carried out by elemental operations that are implemented by specialized processes in the visual brain [Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition (18), 97-159]. According to this hypothesis, there are a limited number of elemental operations that, since they can be applied sequentially, may nevertheless give rise to a large number of visual routines. Examples of such elemental operations are visual search, texture segregation and contour grouping. Here we attempt to delineate how such elemental operations are implemented in the visual brain. When an image appears, feedforward processing rapidly leads to an activity pattern that is distributed across many visual areas. Thereafter, elemental operations come into play, and these are implemented by the modulation of firing rates. Firing rate modulations effectuate grouping of neural responses into coherent object representations. Moreover, they permit transfer of information from one operator to the next, which allows flexibility in the sequencing of operations. We discuss how the elemental operations provide a tool to relate cortical physiology to psychophysics, and suggest a reclassification of pre-attentive and attentive processes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Attentional signals select information by amplifying its activity and reducing that of competing stimuli, whereas persistent neuronal activity keeps information online in working memory.
“Attentional signals select a particular piece of information by amplifying its activity and reducing that of other competing stimuli, whereas persistent neuronal activity keeps information online in working memory (Roelfsema, 2005; Roelfsema et al., 2000; Zylberberg et al., 2011).”
From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Roelfsema et al., 2000
Sections 3.4.1 and 6.2 link attentional selection to enhanced neuronal firing, and section 3.5.2 describes a spatial signal that persists across a delay as a form of working memory. The paper also describes inhibition among competing object representations, but section 3.5.1 says it cannot distinguish active suppression of items losing relevance from passive decay. It therefore does not fully support the claim that attentional signals reduce competing stimuli’s activity. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 130 · Cited by 162
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [80]80. Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Here and there in the visual field. In Z. Pylyshyn, Computational processes in human 6ision: an interdisciplinary per- specti6e (pp. 210 -236). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
- [124]124. A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Re6iew, 1, 202 -238.
- Authors
- Roelfsema, P. R., Lamme, V. A. F., & Spekreijse, H.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Roelfsema, Pieter R
- Venue
- Vision Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 10-12
- Pages
- 1385-1411
- ISSN
- 0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2166198088
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 130
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 8.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Vision Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
- 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 › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- visual routines, visual search, texture segregation, contour grouping, feedforward processing, firing rate modulation, object representation, visual cortex
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Haplorhini, Attention, Feedback, Humans, Models, Psychological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychophysics, Visual Cortex, Vision Disparity
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
