Cited by 3,538Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Speed of processing in the human visual system

Thorpe, Simon, Fize, Denis, Marlot, Catherine·1996·Nature

Abstract

How long does it take for the human visual system to process a complex natural image? Subjectively, recognition of familiar objects and scenes appears to be virtually instantaneous, but measuring this processing time experimentally has proved difficult. Behavioural measures such as reaction times can be used, but these include not only visual processing but also the time required for response execution. However, event-related potentials (ERPs) can sometimes reveal signs of neural processing well before the motor output. Here we use a go/no-go categorization task in which subjects have to decide whether a previously unseen photograph, flashed on for just 20 ms, contains an animal. ERP analysis revealed a frontal negativity specific to no-go trials that develops roughly 150 ms after stimulus onset. We conclude that the visual processing needed to perform this highly demanding task can be achieved in under 150 ms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/381520a0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Ultra rapid categorization is a task for which back projections are likely to be inactive.

    “Thus, a natural paradigm for comparing the performance of human observers in an object-recognition task to that of a feedforward model of visual processing is ultra rapid categorization, a task for which back projections are likely to be inactive (30, 31).”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [30]

  • The accuracy of the human observers is well within the range of data previously obtained with go/no-go tasks on similar tasks.

    “The accuracy of the human observers is well within the range of data previously obtained with go/no-go tasks on similar tasks (30, 31, 33).”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [30]

  • Animal- vs. non-animal-recognition is a well established experiment.

    “A well established experiment is an animal- vs. non-animal-recognition task (30-34).”

    From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [30]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C.
Affiliations
Centre de recherche cerveau et cognition (FR)
Venue
Nature
Published
1996-06
Volume
381
Issue
6582
Pages
520-522
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2091845343
Cited by
3,538
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 127 · 2023: 116 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 151 · 2018: 172 · 2017: 165 · 2016: 143 · 2015: 155 · 2014: 169 · 2013: 157 · 2012: 174
FWCI
20.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual processing speed, event-related potentials, go/no-go task, frontal negativity, object classification, natural scene recognition, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adult, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Vision, Ocular

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