Classical theories of attention posit that integration of features into object representation (or feature binding) requires engagement of focused attention. Studies challenging this idea have demonstrated that feature binding can happen outside of the focus of attention for familiar objects, as well as for arbitrary color-orientation conjunctions. Detection performance for arbitrary feature conjunction improves with training, suggesting a potential role of perceptual learning mechanisms in the integration of features, a process called “binding-learning”. In the present study, we investigate whether stimulus variability and task relevance, two critical determinants of visual perceptual learning, also modulate binding-learning. Transfer of learning in a visual search task to a pre-exposed color-orientation conjunction was assessed under conditions of varying stimulus variability and task relevance. We found transfer of learning for the pre-exposed feature conjunctions that were trained with high variability (Experiment 1). Transfer of learning was not observed when the conjunction was rendered task-irrelevant during training due to pop-out targets (Experiment 2). Our findings show that feature binding is determined by principles of perceptual learning, and they support the idea that functions traditionally attributed to goal-driven attention can be grounded in the learning of the statistical structure of the environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Higher standard deviation was observed for transfer index data in the low-variability group and the mean of this group could likely be distorted by outliers. A re-analysis on the low-variability group data was performed after removing any transfer index exceeding 2.5 SDs from the mean (mean = -1.52; SD = 5.37; range = -14.95 to 11.90). One participant with a transfer index of -17.64 was removed based on this criterion. As in the main analysis reported in the Results section, a one-sample t test was performed on this data to test if the transfer index significantly differed from 0. Consistent with the observation in the main analysis, transfer index did not significantly differ from zero (mean = 0.062; p = 0.83).
Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1993). Attentional control of early perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90(12), 5718–5722.
Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1997). Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning. Nature, 387(6631), 401.
Ahissar, M., Nahum, M., Nelken, I., & Hochstein, S. (2009). Reverse Hierarchies and sensory learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 285–299.
Amitay, S., Hawkey, D. J., & Moore, D. R. (2005). Auditory frequency discrimination learning is affected by stimulus variability. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(4), 691–698.
Andersen, S., Hillyard, S. A., & Müller, M. M. (2008). Attention facilitates multiple stimulus features in parallel in human visual cortex. Current Biology, 18(13), 1006–1009.
Andersen, S., & Müller, M. (2010). Behavioral performance follows the time course of neural facilitation and suppression during cued shifts of feature-selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(31), 13878–13882.
Anderson, G. M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). Top-down expectancy versus bottom-up guidance in search for known color-form conjunctions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2622–2639.
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443.
Banai, K., & Amitay, S. (2015). The effects of stimulus variability on the perceptual learning of speech and non-speech stimuli. PloS One, 10(2), e0118465.
Braet, W., & Humphreys, G. W. (2009). The role of reentrant processes in feature binding: Evidence from neuropsychology and TMS on late onset illusory conjunctions. Visual Cognition, 17(1-2), 25–47.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484–1525.
Champely, S., Ekstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Anandkumar, A., & et al (2018). Package ‘pwr’. R package version, 1–2.
Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Language and Speech, 47(3), 207–238.
Cowell, R. A., Leger, K. R., & Serences, J. T. (2017). Feature-coding transitions to conjunction-coding with progression through human visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 118(6), 3194–3214.
Crouzet, S. M., Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2010). Fast saccades toward faces: face detection in just 100 ms face detection in just 100 ms. Journal of Vision, 10(4), 16–16.
Dombrowe, I. C., Olivers, C. N., & Donk, M. (2010). The time course of color-and luminance-based salience effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 189.
Dowd, E. W., & Golomb, J. D. (2019). Object-feature binding survives dynamic shifts of spatial attention. Psychological Science, 30(3), 343–361.
Eglin, M., Robertson, L. C., & Knight, R. T. (1989). Visual search performance in the neglect syndrome. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(4), 372–385.
Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247.
Egner, T., Monti, J. M., Trittschuh, E. H., Wieneke, C. A., Hirsch, J., & Mesulam, M. M. (2008). Neural integration of top-down spatial and feature-based information in visual search. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(24), 6141–6151.
Esterman, M. (2000). Preattentive and attentive visual search in individuals with hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychology, 14(4), 599.
Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2005). Perception of objects in natural scenes: is it really attention free?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1476.
Frank, S. M., Reavis, E. A., Tse, P. U., & Greenlee, M. W. (2014). Neural mechanisms of feature conjunction learning: enduring changes in occipital cortex after a week of training. Human Brain Mapping, 35(4), 1201–1211.
Furmanski, C. S., Schluppeck, D., & Engel, S. A. (2004). Learning strengthens the response of primary visual cortex to simple patterns. Current Biology, 14(7), 573–578.
Geng, J. J., & Behrmann, M. (2006). Competition between simultaneous stimuli modulated by location probability in hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychologia, 44(7), 1050–1060.
Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 585–612.
Hickey, C., van Zoest, W., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). The time course of exogenous and endogenous control of covert attention. Experimental Brain Research, 201(4), 789–796.
Huang, X., Lu, H., Tjan, B. S., Zhou, Y., & Liu, Z. (2007). Motion perceptual learning: when only task-relevant information is learned. Journal of Vision, 7(10), 14–14.
Humphreys, G. W. (2001). A multi-stage account of binding in vision: Neuropsychological evidence. Visual Cognition, 8(3-5), 381–410.
Hung, S. C., & Seitz, A. (2014). Prolonged training at threshold promotes robust retinotopic specificity in perceptual learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(25), 8423–8431.
Jeter, P. E., Dosher, B. A., Petrov, A., & Lu, Z. L. (2009). Task precision at transfer determines specificity of perceptual learning. Journal of Vision, 9(3), 1–1.
Jiang (2018). Habitual versus goal-driven attention. Cortex, 102, 107–120.
Jiang, Swallow, K.M., & Rosenbaum, G. M. (2013). Guidance of spatial attention by incidental learning and endogenous cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 285.
Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2006). Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements: Visual processing speed revisited. Vision Research, 46(11), 1762–1776.
Li, F. F., VanRullen, R., Koch, C., & Perona, P. (2002). Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9596–9601.
Liang, J. C., Erez, J., Zhang, F., Cusack, R., & Barense, M. D. (2020). Experience transforms conjunctive object representations: Neural evidence for unitization after visual expertise. Cerebral Cortex, 30(5), 2721–2739.
Lobley, K., & Walsh, V. (1998). Perceptual learning in visual conjunction search. Perception, 27(10), 1245–1255.
Lu, Z. L., Chu, W., Dosher, B. A., & Lee, S. (2005). Independent perceptual learning in monocular and binocular motion systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(15), 5624–5629.
Paffen, C. L., Gayet, S., Heilbron, M., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2018). Attention-based perceptual learning does not affect access to awareness. Journal of Vision, 18(3), 7–7.
Peelen, M. V., Fei-Fei, L., & Kastner, S. (2009). Neural mechanisms of rapid natural scene categorization in human visual cortex. Nature, 460(7251), 94–97.
Rappaport, S. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2013). The attraction of yellow corn: Reduced attentional constraints on coding learned conjunctive relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(4), 1016.
Rappaport, S. J., Riddoch, M. J., Chechlacz, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2016). Unconscious familiarity-based color–form binding: Evidence from visual extinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(3), 501–516.
Reddy, L., Reddy, L., & Koch, C. (2006). Face identification in the near-absence of focal attention. Vision Research, 46(15), 2336–2343.
Reddy, L., Wilken, P., & Koch, C. (2004). Face-gender discrimination is possible in the near-absence of attention. Journal of Vision, 4(2), 4–4.
Robertson, L., Treisman, A., Friedman-Hill, S., & Grabowecky, M. (1997). The interaction of spatial and object pathways: Evidence from Balint’s syndrome. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 295–317.
Robertson, L., Treisman, A., & et al. (1995). Parietal contributions to visual feature binding: evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions. Science, 269(5225), 853–855.
Salovich, N. A., Remington, R. W., & Jiang, Y. V. (2018). Acquisition of habitual visual attention and transfer to related tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1052–1058.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–218.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. detection, search, and attention. Psychological review, 84(1), 1.
Schwartz, S., Maquet, P., & Frith, C. (2002). Neural correlates of perceptual learning: a functional MRI study of visual texture discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(26), 17137–17142.
Seitz, A., & Watanabe, T. (2005). A unified model for perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 329–334.
Seitz, A., & Watanabe, T. (2009). The phenomenon of task-irrelevant perceptual learning. Vision Research, 49(21), 2604–2610.
Shibata, K., Sagi, D., & Watanabe, T. (2014). Two-stage model in perceptual learning: toward a unified theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316a, 18.
Sigman, M., Pan, H., Yang, Y., Stern, E., Silbersweig, D., & Gilbert, C. D. (2005). Top-down reorganization of activity in the visual pathway after learning a shape identification task. Neuron, 46 (5), 823–835.
Sowden, P. T., Davies, I. R., & Roling, P. (2000). Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: a functional role for improvements in adults’ visual sensitivity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 379.
Su, Y., Lai, Y., Huang, W., Tan, W., Qu, Z., & Ding, Y. (2014). Short-term perceptual learning in visual conjunction search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1415.
Theeuwes, J. (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 799.
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381(6582), 520–522.
Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 353(1373), 1295–1306.
Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.
Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107–141.
VanRullen, R. (2007). The power of the feed-forward sweep. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(1-2), 167.
VanRullen, R. (2009). Binding hardwired versus on-demand feature conjunctions. Visual Cognition, 17(1-2), 103–119.
Vickery, T. J., Sussman, R. S., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). Spatial context learning survives interference from working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (6), 1358.
Walsh, V., Ashbridge, E., & Cowey, A. (1998). Cortical plasticity in perceptual learning demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 36(1), 45–49.
Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2018a). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 13.
Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2018b). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture independent of search strategy. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1763–1774.
Watanabe, T., Náñez, J. E., & Sasaki, Y. (2001). Perceptual learning without perception. Nature, 413(6858), 844.
Wildegger, T., Riddoch, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). Stored color–form knowledge modulates perceptual sensitivity in search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1223–1238.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601.
Yashar, A., & Carrasco, M. (2016). Rapid and long-lasting learning of feature binding. Cognition, 154, 130–138.
Yashar, A., Wu, X., Chen, J., & Carrasco, M. (2019). Crowding and binding: Not all feature dimensions behave in the same way. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1533–1546.
Zhang, J. Y., Zhang, G. L., Xiao, L. Q., Klein, S. A., Levi, D. M., & Yu, C. (2010). Rule-based learning explains visual perceptual learning and its specificity and transfer. Journal of Neuroscience, 30 (37), 12323–12328.
We thank Meera Mary Sunny for helpful comments on an earlier version of this draft. This research was supported by IIT-GN ORES awarded to NG. We declare no conflicts of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open practices statement
The reported experiments were not preregistered. The data have been uploaded to a repository (https://osf.io/tz8g5/?view_only=ad2fb4abf1d14456a6565f76ee780ccf).
About this article
Cite this article
George, N., Egner, T. Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning. Atten Percept Psychophys (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02338-6
- Feature binding
- Perceptual learning
- Habitual attention
- Visual search