alt=The stages of feature integration theory  alt=The stimuli resembling a carrot, lake and tire, respectively.|The stimuli resembling a carrot, lake and tire, respectively. Treisman et al.(1986). If people use their prior knowledge or experience to perceive an object, they are less likely to make mistakes, or illusory conjunctions. In order to explain this phenomenon, Treisman and Souther (1986) conducted an experiment in which they presented three shapes to participants where illusory conjunctions could exist. Surprisingly, when she told participants that they were being shown a carrot, lake, and tire (in place of the orange triangle, blue oval, and black circle, respectively), illusory conjunctions did not exist.Illusory words: The roles of attention and of top–down constraints in conjoining letters to form words. By Treisman, Anne; Souther, Janet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol 12(1), Feb 1986, 3-17. Treisman maintained that prior-knowledge played an important role in proper perception. Normally, bottom-up processing is used for identifying novel objects; but, once we recall prior knowledge, top-down processing is used. This explains why people are good at identifying familiar objects rather than unfamiliar. References Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade (1980). "A feature-integration theory of attention." Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 97–136. Anne Treisman and Hilary Schmidt (1982). "Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects." Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 107–141. Abstract In perceiving objects we may synthesize conjunctions of separable features by directing attention serially to each item in turn (A. Treisman and G. Gelade, Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 97-136). This feature-integration theory predicts that when attention is diverted or overloaded, features may be wrongly recombined, giving rise to "illusory conjunctions." The present paper confirms that illusory conjunctions are frequently experienced among unattended stimuli varying in color and shape, and that they occur also with size and solidity (outlined versus filled-in shapes). They are shown both in verbal recall and in simultaneous and successive matching tasks, making it unlikely that they depend on verbal labeling or on memory failure. They occur as often between stimuli differing on many features as between more similar stimuli, and spatial separation has little effect on their frequency. Each feature seems to be coded as an independent entity and to migrate, when attention is diverted, with few constraints from the other features of its source or destination. Anne Treisman and Janet Souther (1986). "Illusory words: The roles of attention and of top–down constraints in conjoining letters to form words." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol 12(1), pp. 3–17 Anne Treisman (1988). "Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, pp. 201–236. Anne Treisman and Nancy Kanwisher (1998). "Perceiving visually presented objects: recognition, awareness, and modularity." Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, pp. 218–226. J. M. Wolfe (1994). "Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol 1, pp. 202–238
alt=The stages of feature integration theory |300px|The stages of feature integration theory alt=The stimuli resembling a carrot, lake and tire, respectively.|The stimuli resembling a carrot, lake and tire, respectively. Treisman et al.(1986). If people use their prior knowledge or experience to perceive an object, they are less likely to make mistakes, or illusory conjunctions. In order to explain this phenomenon, Treisman and Souther (1986) conducted an experiment in which they presented three shapes to participants where illusory conjunctions could exist. Surprisingly, when she told participants that they were being shown a carrot, lake, and tire (in place of the orange triangle, blue oval, and black circle, respectively), illusory conjunctions did not exist.Illusory words: The roles of attention and of top–down constraints in conjoining letters to form words. By Treisman, Anne; Souther, Janet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol 12(1), Feb 1986, 3-17. Treisman maintained that prior-knowledge played an important role in proper perception. Normally, bottom-up processing is used for identifying novel objects; but, once we recall prior knowledge, top-down processing is used. This explains why people are good at identifying familiar objects rather than unfamiliar. References Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade (1980). "A feature-integration theory of attention." Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 97–136. Anne Treisman and Hilary Schmidt (1982). "Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects." Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 107–141. Anne Treisman and Janet Souther (1986). "Illusory words: The roles of attention and of top–down constraints in conjoining letters to form words." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol 12(1), pp. 3–17 Anne Treisman (1988). "Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, pp. 201–236. Anne Treisman and Nancy Kanwisher (1998). "Perceiving visually presented objects: recognition, awareness, and modularity." Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, pp. 218–226. J. M. Wolfe (1994). "Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol 1, pp. 202–238
A
|300px|The stages of feature integration theory
D
Abstract In perceiving objects we may synthesize conjunctions of separable features by directing attention serially to each item in turn (A. Treisman and G. Gelade, Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 97-136). This feature-integration theory predicts that when attention is diverted or overloaded, features may be wrongly recombined, giving rise to "illusory conjunctions." The present paper confirms that illusory conjunctions are frequently experienced among unattended stimuli varying in color and shape, and that they occur also with size and solidity (outlined versus filled-in shapes). They are shown both in verbal recall and in simultaneous and successive matching tasks, making it unlikely that they depend on verbal labeling or on memory failure. They occur as often between stimuli differing on many features as between more similar stimuli, and spatial separation has little effect on their frequency. Each feature seems to be coded as an independent entity and to migrate, when attention is diverted, with few constraints from the other features of its source or destination.