The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism*
Abstract
There is considerable evidence that visual attention is concentrated at a single locus in the visual field, and that this locus can be moved independent of eye movements. Two studies are reported which suggest that, while certain aspects of attention require that locations be scanned serially, at least one operation may be carried out in parallel across several independent loci in the visual field. That is the operation of indexing features and tracking their identity. The studies show that: (a) subjects are able to track a subset of up to 5 objects in a field of 10 identical randomly-moving objects in order to distinguish a change in a target from a change in a distractor; and (b) when the speed and distance parameters of the display are designed so that, on the basis of some very conservative assumptions about the speed of attention movement and encoding times, the predicted performance of a serial scanning and updating algorithm would not exceed about 40% accuracy, subjects still manage to do the task with 87% accuracy. These findings are discussed in relation to an earlier, and independently motivated model of feature-binding--called the FINST model--which posits a primitive identity maintenance mechanism that indexes and tracks a limited number of visual objects in parallel. These indexes are hypothesized to serve the function of binding visual features prior to subsequent pattern recognition.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Posner, M. I. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · Cited by 9,670
Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model
Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211502 · Cited by 1,907
Spatial extent of attention to letters and words.
LaBerge, D. (1983) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.3.371 · Cited by 620
Cited by
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-o · Cited by 2,218
A taxonomy of external and internal attention.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427 · Cited by 1,472
Capacity limits of information processing in the brain
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010 · Cited by 928
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x · Cited by 910
Metadata
- Authors
- Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W.
- Venue
- Spatial Vision
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 1988
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 179-197
- ISSN
- 0169-1015 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-5683
- OpenAlex
- W2015634454
- Cited by
- 1,906
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.