Linked Life Data

2971772

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/2971772

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
1988-11-7
pubmed:abstractText
Different features of stimuli present in the field of view appear to be registered in different cortical maps. How, then, are the features that come from the same object bound together rather than mistakenly assembled with features coming from other simultaneously present objects? One theory supposes that an attentional mechanism intercepts input coming from particular retinal locations at a way station prior to parsing of the features from the same object. Any enhancement (or facilitation) at that stage will cause all the features from that object to be modified simultaneously in the downstream registers. The imposed temporal synchronicity serves as the essential binding cue. Five experiments provided no support for the theory. There is no tendency for synchronicity of features to cause binding unless the features come from the same location. Location, rather than temporal synchronicity, appears to be the essential cue for binding.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Aug
pubmed:issn
0096-1523
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
14
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
444-52
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1988
pubmed:articleTitle
Tests of a temporal theory of attentional binding.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene 97403.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.