Modelling Emergent Attentional Properties

  • Dietmar Heinke
  • Glyn W. Humphreys
Part of the Perspectives in Neural Computing book series (PERSPECT.NEURAL)

Abstract

We recently introduced a computational model, SAIM (Selective Attention Identification Model), which is capable of simulating visual disorders in brain lesioned patients, including visual neglect and extinction [12]. Here, we report that the same model can both simulate known attentional effects in normal subjects and make novel verifiable predictions. SAIM aims to achieve a translation-invariant object recognition by mapping inputs from their location on the retina to a translation-invariant ”focus of attention”. Inputs are competitively identified by matching to stored templates. When there are multiple items in the field, there is also competition between the items to win the mapping process. With these mechanisms, SAIM can reproduce qualitatively the results of (1) the Eriksen ”flanker” experiment, where RTs increase when a target is flankered by distractors of the opposite response category; and (2) the Posner spatial cueing paradigm, where RTs increase, when the locations of cues do not match the locations of targets. In the cueing paradigm SAIM also predicts that on invalid trails the target is perceived as being shifted more into the periphery (overshoot effect). We have confirmed this prediction experimentally. In SAIM, attentional effects are emergent properties of the competition for limited resources which is needed to achieve a translation invariant object recognition. In humans, there may be no need to posit an explicit attentional system to account for emergent ”attentional” effects on behaviour.

Keywords

Retina Posit Dition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Shun-ichi Amari. Dynamics of Pattern Formation in Lateral-Inhibition Type Neural Fields. Biological Cybernetics, 27:77–87, 1977.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Chelazzi, E.K. Miller, J. Duncan, and R. Desimone. A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex. Nature, 363:345–347, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Cohen, M. Farah, and D. Servan-Schreiber. Mechanisms of spatial attention: The relation of macrostructure to microstructure in parietal neglect. J. of cognitive Neuroscience, 6(4):377–387, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Cohen and J. L McCelland. On the control of automatic process: A parallel distributed porcessing model of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97:332–361, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Desimone, M. Wessinger, L. Thomas, and W. Schneider. Attentional Control of Visual Perception: Cortical and Subcortical Mechanisms. In Cold Spring Habor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, pages 963–971. Cold Spring Habor Laboratory Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Duncan and G. W. Humphreys. Visual Search and Stimulus Similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3):433–458, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    B.A Eriksen and C.W. Eriksen. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16:143–149, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    I. Fujita, K. Tanaka, M. Ito, and K. Cheng. Columns for visual features of objects in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature, 360:343–346, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Heinke and G. W. Humphreys. SAIM: A Model of Visual Attention and Neglect. In Proc. of the ICANN’97, Lausanne, Switzerland, pages 913–918. Springer Verlag, 199Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Hopfield. Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:3088–3092, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Glyn W. Humphreys and Hermann J. Müller. SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A Connectionist Model of Visual Search. Cognitive Psychology, 25:433–110, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G.W. Humphreys and D. Heinke. Spatial representation and selection in the brain: Neuropsychological and computational constraints. Visual Cognition, 5(1/2), 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Mishkin, L.G. Ungerleider, and K.A. Macko. Object vision and sptial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neuroscience, 6:414–417, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Moran and R. Desimone. Slective Attention Gates Visual Processing in the Extrastriate Cortex. Science, 229:782–784, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.C. Mozer. The perception of multiple objects: a connectionist approach. The MIT Press, 1991Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. A. Olshausen, C. H. Anderson, and D. C. v. Essen. A Neurobiological Model of Visual Attention and Invariant Pattern Recognition Based on Dynamic Routing of Information. J. of Neuroscience, 13(11):4700–4719, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    B. A. Olshausen, C. H. Anderson, and D. C. v. Essen. A Neurobiological Model of Visual Attention and Invariant Pattern Recognition Based on Dynamic Routing of Information. J. of Computational Neuroscience, 2:45–62, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. Pashler, editor. Attention. Psychology Press, 1998Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M.L Posner, C.R.R. Snyder, and B.J. Davidson. Attention and the detection of signals. J. Exp. Psychol., 109:160–174, 1980Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. M. Wolfe. Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search. Psychonomie Bulletin & Review, 1(2):202–238, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietmar Heinke
    • 1
  • Glyn W. Humphreys
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Science Centre School of PsychologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations