Cited by 86Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Attention as inference: Selection is probabilistic; responses are all-or-none samples.

Open access
Vul, Edward, Hanus, Deborah, Kanwisher, Nancy·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Theories of probabilistic cognition postulate that internal representations are made up of multiple simultaneously held hypotheses, each with its own probability of being correct (henceforth, "probability distributions"). However, subjects make discrete responses and report the phenomenal contents of their mind to be all-or-none states rather than graded probabilities. How can these 2 positions be reconciled? Selective attention tasks, such as those used to study crowding, the attentional blink, rapid serial visual presentation, and so forth, were recast as probabilistic inference problems and used to assess how graded, probabilistic representations may produce discrete subjective states. The authors asked subjects to make multiple guesses per trial and used 2nd-order statistics to show that (a) visual selective attention operates in a graded fashion in time and space, selecting multiple targets to varying degrees on any given trial; and (b) responses are generated by a process of sampling from the probabilistic states that result from graded selection. The authors concluded that although people represent probability distributions, their discrete responses and conscious states are products of a process that samples from these probabilistic representations.

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 · 10.1037/a0017352

Cites

57 of 57 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

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

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bruner J Goodnow J Austin G 1956 A study of thinking New York Wiley
  2. Rich A Vul E Can feature binding be explained by certainty in space and time? Poster at the European Conference on Visual Perception Utrecht, Netherlands August, 2008

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vul, E., Hanus, D., & Kanwisher, N.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2009
Volume
138
Issue
4
Pages
546-560
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2092534127
Cited by
86
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (EY13455)
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
probabilistic inference, selective attention, attentional sampling, probability distributions, attentional blink, crowding, rapid serial visual presentation, discrete response, conscious perception, second-order statistics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Cues, Humans, Probability, Psychological Theory, Task Performance and Analysis, Visual Perception, Uncertainty, Young Adult

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