Abstract
An implicit assumption of studies in the attentional literature has been that global and local levels of attention are involved in object recognition. To investigate this assumption, a divided attention task was used in which hierarchical figures were presented to prime the subsequent discrimination of target objects at different levels of category identity (basic and subordinate). Target objects were identified among distractor objects that varied in their degree of visual similarity to the targets. Hierarchical figures were also presented at different sizes and as individual global and local elements in order to investigate whether attention-priming effects on object discrimination were due to grouping/parsing operations or spatial extent. The results showed that local processing primed subordinate object discriminations when the objects were visually similar. Global processing primed basic object discriminations, regardless of the similarity of the distractors, and subordinate object discriminations when the objects were visually dissimilar. It was proposed that global and local processing aids the selection of perceptual attributes of objects that are diagnostic for recognition and that selection is based on two mechanisms: spatial extent and grouping/parsing operations. nt]mis|This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Human Frontiers Science Program awards to the second author.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archambault, A., Gosselin, F., &Schyns, P. G.. (2000). A natural bias for the basic level? In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.),Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 60–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Biederman, I. (1995). Visual object recognition. In S. M. Kosslyn & D. N. Osherson (Eds.),Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive Science (2nd ed., pp. 121–165). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition.Cognitive Psychology,23, 393–419.
Biederman, I., Subramaniam, S., Bar, M., Kalocsai, P., &Fiser, J. (1999). Subordinate-level object classification reexamined.Psychological Research,62, 131–153.
Biederman, I., Subramaniam, S., Kalocsai, P., &Bar, M. (1999). Viewpoint-invariant information in subordinate-level object classification. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.),Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and Application (pp. 91–111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boucart, M., &Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Global shape cannot be attended without object identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 785–806.
Boucart, M., Humphreys, G. W., &Lorenceau, J. (1995). Automatic access to object identity: Attention to global information, not to particular physical dimensions, is important.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 584–601.
Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.
Collin, C. A., &McMullen, P. A. (2005). Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basiclevel categorization.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 354–364.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,3, 433–458.
Edelman, S., &Duvdevani-Bar, S. (1997). A model of visual recognition and categorization.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,352, 1191–1202.
Edelman, S., &Intrator, N. (2003). Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations.Cognitive Science,27, 73–109.
Filoteo, J. V., Friedrich, F. J., &Stricker, J. L. (2001). Shifting attention to different levels within global-local stimuli: A study of normal participants and a patient with temporal-parietal lobe damage.Cognitive Neuropsychology,18, 227–261.
Fiser, J., Subramaniam, S., &Biederman, I. (2001). Size tuning in the absence of spatial frequency tuning in object recognition.Vision Research,41, 1931–1950.
Han, S., &Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 5–21.
Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., &Chen, L. (1999a). Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1411–1432.
Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., &Chen, L. (1999b). Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 661–674.
Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition.Cognition,18, 65–96.
Hoffman, D. D., &Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts.Cognition,63, 29–78.
Hübner, R. (2000). Attention shifting between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects.Visual Cognition,7, 465–484.
Hummel, J. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.),Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 157–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Humphreys, G. W., &Boucart, M. (1997). Selection by color and form in vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 136–153.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., &Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection.Cognitive Psychology,16, 243–275.
Kim, N., Ivry, R. B., &Robertson, L. C. (1999). Sequential priming in hierarchically organized figures: Effects of target level and target resolution.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 715–729.
Kimchi, R. (1998). Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1105–1118.
Kimchi, R. (2000). Perceptual organization of visual objects: A microgenetic analysis.Vision Research,40, 1333–1347.
Lamb, M. R., &Robertson, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchical stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty, and stimulus identity.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 172–181.
Lamb, M. R., &Yund, E. W. (1996). Spatial frequency and attention: Effects of level-, target-, and location-repetition on the processing of global and local forms.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 363–373.
Lamb, M. R., &Yund, E. W. (2000). The role of spatial frequency in cued shifts of attention between global and local forms.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 753–761.
Lloyd-Jones, T. J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997a). Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming.Memory & Cognition,25, 606–624.
Lloyd-Jones, T. J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997b). Perceptual differentiation as a source of category effects in object processing: Evidence from naming and object decisions.Memory & Cognition,25, 18–35.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
MacInnes, J. (2000). Experiment presentation software [Computer program]. Halifax: Dalhousie University. Available at www.cs.dal .ca/~macinnwj.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Morrison, D. J., &Schyns, P. G. (2001). Usage of spatial scales for the categorization of faces, objects, and scenes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 454–469.
Murphy, G. L., &Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 70–84.
Murphy, G. L., &Lassaline, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.),Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 93–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murray, J. E., &Jones, C. (2002). Attention to local form information can prevent access to semantic information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 609–625.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology,9, 353–383.
Navon, D. (2003). What does a compound letter tell the psychologist’s mind?Acta Psychologica,114, 273–309.
Oliva, A., &Schyns, P. G. (1997). Coarse blobs or fine edges? Evidence that information diagnosticity changes the perception of complex visual stimuli.Cognitive Psychology,34, 72–107.
Robertson, L. C. (1996). Attentional persistence for features of hierarchical patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 227–249.
Robertson, L. C., Egly, R., Lamb, M. R., &Kerth, L. (1993). Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 471–487.
Robertson, L. C., &Ivry, R. [B.] (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries: Attention to visual and auditory primitives.Current Directions in Psychological Science,9, 59–63.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Schyns, P. G. (1998). Diagnostic recognition: Task constraints, object information and their interactions.Cognition,67, 147–179.
Schyns, P. G., &Oliva, A. (1999). Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations.Cognition,69, 243–265.
Snodgrass, J. G., &McCullough, B. (1986). The role of visual similarity in picture categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 147–154.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Tarr, M. J., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1494–1505.
Tarr, M. J., &Kriegman, D. J. (2001). What defines a view?Vision Research,41, 1981–2004.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientationdependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Psychology,21, 233–282.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?Psychological Science,1, 253–256.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.
Vecera, S. P. (1998). Visual object representation: An introduction.Psychobiology,26, 281–308.
Ward, L. (1982). Determinants to attention to local and global features of visual forms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 562–581.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Large, ME., McMullen, P.A. Hierarchical attention in discriminating objects at different levels of specificity. Perception & Psychophysics 68, 845–860 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193706
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193706