Attention and perceptual organization

Abstract

How does attention contribute to perceptual experience? Within cognitive science, attention is known to contribute to the organization of sensory features into perceptual objects, or “object-based organization.” The current paper tackles a different type of organization and thus suggests a different role for attention in conscious perception. Within every perceptual experience we find that more subjectively interesting percepts stand out in the foreground, whereas less subjectively interesting percepts are relegated to the background. The sight of a sycamore often gains the visual foreground for a nature lover, whereas the sound of a violin often gains the auditory foreground for a music lover, but not necessarily vice versa. How does the perceptual system organize early sensory processing according to the subject’s interests? The current paper reveals how this subject-based organization is brought about and maintained through top-down attention. In fact, the current paper argues that top-down attention is necessary for conscious perception in so far as it is necessary for bringing about and maintaining the subject-based organization of perceptual experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    I focus on top-down attention because the term “attention” has come to be applied to such a wide range of phenomena and because a bottom-up distribution of resources, sometimes called “attention,” occurs in all neural processing. I thus use the more specific “top-down attention” to mean “the task-dependent direction of cognitive and neural resources by the subject.” This does not mean that the ultimate distribution of cognitive and neural resources is completely controlled by the subject, but only that this distribution has been influenced by the subject through top-down feedback.

  2. 2.

    In this paper I isolate conscious perception as a whole experience to avoid looking at it piecemeal. That is, I want to avoid arguments about whether some part of perceptual experience has benefitted from attention and focus on whether attention is necessary for the essential structural features of conscious perception.

  3. 3.

    Similar structural differences are described at length in the work of Aron Gurwitsch (1964, 1985) and in a paper by Sebastian Watzl (2011), although both authors discuss the differences in terms of consciousness, rather than conscious perception. The focus of these other works is also distinct from that of the current paper: Gurwitsch aims to characterize consciousness (“We shall establish and substantiate the thesis that every total field of consciousness consists of three domains”), whereas Watzl aims to characterize attention (“This paper defends and develops the structuring account of conscious attention”). The current paper instead argues for a dependency relation between conscious perception and attention.

  4. 4.

    Admittedly, I do not know what form of organization could account for this type of perception, the informational content of which seems merely ostensive.

  5. 5.

    That is, any interest of the subject that can be satisfied or partly satisfied through conscious perception can bring about the organization it takes to make sensory input perceptual. The subject’s interest in sleeping, for example, is not such a candidate.

  6. 6.

    This is sometimes described as a “bottom-up attention,” in contrast with the type of attention that this paper is concerned with, which is a “top-down” attention.

  7. 7.

    Note that this does not entail Representationalism, since some properties or aspects of the input may be retained despite this imposition of an organizational structure.

  8. 8.

    Thanks to Ned Block for suggesting this objection.

  9. 9.

    Thanks to Katalin Farkas for suggesting this objection.

  10. 10.

    Thanks to Dan Dahlstrom for suggesting this objection.

  11. 11.

    Thanks to John Campbell for suggesting this objection.

  12. 12.

    Thanks to Jeff Yoshimi for this objection.

  13. 13.

    Thanks to Brian McLaughlin and Christopher Hill for this objection.

  14. 14.

    Thanks to Michael Tye for suggesting this objection.

  15. 15.

    Thanks to David Chalmers for this objection.

  16. 16.

    Thanks to Hallie Liberto for this objection.

  17. 17.

    Thanks to Brian McLaughlin, Peter Graham, and Catherine Kendig for this objection.

  18. 18.

    Note that this response might also be used for certain types of sensory consciousness in humans.

References

  1. Block, N. (2008). Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(5–6), 481–499.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buras, T. (2009). The function of sensations in Reid. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47(3), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004). Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 7(3), 308–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cichy, R. M., Heinzle, J., & Haynes, J. D. (2012). Imagery and perception share cortical representations of content and location. Cerebral Cortex, 22(2), 372–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, M. A., Alvarez, G. A., & Nakayama, K. (2011). Natural-scene perception requires attention. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1165–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, 79, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Edelman, D. B., & Seth, A. K. (2009). Animal consciousness: a synthetic approach. Trends in neurosciences, 32(9), 476–484.

  9. Grill-Spector, K., & Malach, R. (2004). The human visual cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 649–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gurwitsch, A. (1964). Field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gurwitsch, A. (1985). Marginal consciousness. Ohio: Ohio University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hadjikhani, N., Liu, A. K., Dale, A. M., Cavanagh, P., & Tootell, R. B. (1998). Retinotopy and color sensitivity in human visual cortical area V 8. Nature Neuroscience, 1(3), 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamlyn, D. W. (1994). Perception, sensation, and non-conceptual content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 44(175), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes, J. D., & Rees, G. (2005). Predicting the orientation of invisible stimuli from activity in human primary visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 8(5), 686–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hopp, W. (2008). Husserl on sensation, perception, and interpretation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Itti, L., Koch, C., & Niebur, E. (1998). A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE, 20(11), 1254–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lamme, V. A. (2004). Separate neural definitions of visual consciousness and visual attention; a case for phenomenal awareness. Neural Networks, 17(5), 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li, Z. (2002). A saliency map in primary visual cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(1), 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mole, C. (2011). The metaphysics of attention. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical and psychological essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nieder, A. (2002). Seeing more than meets the eye: Processing of illusory contours in animals. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 188(4), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prinz, J. (2012). The conscious brain: how attention engenders experience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reddy, L., Wilken, P., & Koch, C. (2004). Face-gender discrimination is possible in the near-absence of attention. Journal of Vision, 4(2), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reynolds, J. H., & Heeger, D. J. (2009). The normalization model of attention. Neuron, 61(2), 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwitzgebel, E. (2007). Do you have constant tactile experience of your feet in your shoes?: Or is experience limited to whats in attention? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(3), 5–35.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Siegel, S. (2006). Subject and object in the contents of visual experience. The Philosophical Review, 115(3), 355–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Singer, W., & Gray, C. M. (1995). Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 555–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stokes, M., Thompson, R., Cusack, R., & Duncan, J. (2009). Top-down activation of shape-specific population codes in visual cortex during mental imagery. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(5), 1565–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 201–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 353(1373), 1295–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Treue, S. (2004). Perceptual enhancement of contrast by attention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(10), 435–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Watzl, S. (2011). Attention as structuring the stream of consciousness. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical and psychological essays. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(3), 419–433.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to a number of people who helped me to clarify my position in this paper through encouragement and criticism, but especially to John Campbell, Daniel Dahlstrom, Imogen Dickie, Katalin Farkas, Christopher Hill, Christoph Koch, Brian McLaughlin, Bence Nanay, and Eric Schwitzgebel.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn Dicey Jennings.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jennings, C.D. Attention and perceptual organization. Philos Stud 172, 1265–1278 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0348-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Perception
  • Siegel
  • Phenomenal contrast
  • Treisman