CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 349Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

Preattentive Object Files: Shapeless Bundles of Basic Features

Open access
WOLFE, JEREMY M., BENNETT, SARA C.·1997·Vision Research
DOI 10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00111-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A considerable body of recent evidence shows that preattentive processes can carve visual input into candidate objects. Borrowing and modifying terminology from Kahneman & Treisman (1984), this paper investigates the properties of these preattentive object files. Experiments 1-3 show that preattentive object files are loose collections of basic features. Thus, we can know preattentively that an object has the attributes "red" and "vertical" and yet have no idea if any part of the object is red and vertical. Experiment 4 shows that some information about the structure of an object is available preattentively, but Experiments 5-12 search for and fail to find any preattentive representation of overall shape. Appreciation of the overall shape of an object appears to require the binding together of local form features--a process that requires attention.

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/s0042-6989(96)00111-3

Cites

88 of 88 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?

  • Key to the recognition performance of the model is the large number of tuned units across its hierarchical architecture, which is a direct consequence of learning from natural images and represents a redundant dictionary of fragment-like features that span a range of selectivities and invariances.

    “Key to the recognition performance of the model is the large number of tuned units across its hierarchical architecture, which is a direct consequence of the learning from natural images and represent a redundant dictionary of fragment-like features (12, 17, 41) that span a range of selectivities and invariances.”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Our results agree with several theories of visual processing that suggest that an initial feedforward sweep driven by bottom-up inputs builds a base representation that relies on a basic dictionary of generic features before more complex tasks or visual routines can take place through recurrent projections from higher areas.

    “Our results indeed agree with several theories of visual processing that suggest that an initial feedforward sweep driven by bottom-up inputs builds a base representation that relies on a basic dictionary of generic features (11-13, 17, 41) before more complex tasks or visual routines can take place through recurrent projections from higher areas (20, 42, 43, 45).”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [12]

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: 17

  1. Bergen, J. R. (1991). Theories of visual texture perception. In Regan. D, (Ed.), Spatial vision, (Vol. 10, pp. 114-134). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  2. Bilsky, A. A. & Wolfe, J. M. (1995). Part-whole information is useful in size x size but not in orientation x orientation conjunction searches. Perception und Psychophysics, 57(6), 749-760.
  3. Kahneman, D. & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. R. (Eds), Varieties of attention (pp.29-61). NewYork: Academic Press.
  4. Paquet, L. (1992). Global and local processingin nonattendedobjects: A failure to induce local processing dominance. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 512-529.
  5. Posner, M. I. & Cohen,Y. (1984).Componentsof attention.In Bouma, H. & Bouwhuis,D. G. (Eds),Attention andperformance X(pp. 55- 66). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Tipper, S. P., Driver, J. & Weaver, B. (1991). Object centered inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsycholo~, 43A, 289-298.
  7. Treisman, A. (1986). Properties, parts, and objects. In Boff, K. R., Kaufmann, L. & Thomas, J. P. (Eds), Handbook of human perception and performance (lst edn, Vol. 2, pp. 37.1-35.70). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Treisman, A. & Sate, S. (1990). Conjunctionsearch revisited.Journal of ExperimentalPsychology:Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 459-478.
  9. Treisman, A. M. & DeSchepper,B. (1993). Memory for novel visual shapes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34(4), 1288.
  10. Vecera, S. P. & Farah, M. J. (1994).Doesvisual attentionselect objects or locations?Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 123(2), 146-160.
  11. Wolfe, J. M..(1993).Talkingto yourself about Whatis Where. What is the vocabulary of preattentive vision? Commentary on Jackendorf and Landau, BBS Article. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 254-255.
  12. Wolfe, J. M. (1996a). Visual search. In Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention. London,UK: University College LondonPress, in press.
  13. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R. & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided Search: An alternativeto the feature integrationmodelfor visual search.Journal of ExperimentalPsychology:Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419433.
  14. VkMe, J. M., Yu, K. P., Stewart, M. L, Shorter, A. D., Friedman-Hill, S. R. & Cave, K. R. (1990). Limitations on the parallel guidance of visual search: Colorxcolorand onentationxorientationconjtictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 879-892.
  15. Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional cspture. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 2(5), 156-161.
  16. Yantis, S. & Johnson,D. N. (1990).Mechanismsof attentionalpriority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 812-825.
  17. Zhou,W.; Chen,L. & Zhang,X. (1992).Topologicalperception:Holes in illusory conjunctionand visual search. Investigative Ophthalmol- ogy and VisualScience, 33(4), 958.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
WOLFE, J. M., & BENNETT, S. C.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
WOLFE, JEREMY M.
ORCID
WOLFE, JEREMY M.
Venue
Vision Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
25-43
ISSN
0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00111-3
OpenAlex
W1993091629
Cited by
349
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 14
FWCI
9.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Vision Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY005087, R01-EY05087)
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
preattentive processing, object files, feature binding, object recognition, attention, visual perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Form Perception, Humans, Middle Aged, Visual Perception

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