Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Eye Movements A Window on Mind and Brain_Van Gompel_2007

Second, transsaccadic facilitation of postsaccadic, foveal object processing by a presaccadic, extrafoveal object preview is partly mediated by inter-object connections in long-term memory that code episodic relatedness. Specifically, having a presaccadic preview of an object that is likely to appear in the same real-world settings as the postsaccadic target object facilitates target recognition relative to a situation where the presaccadic object does not belong to the target’s episodic category. This transsaccadic priming effect is at odds with earlier failures to find transsaccadic object priming between semantically related, isolated objects (Henderson, 1992; Pollatsek et al., 1984). The present study suggests that for these episodic inter-object priming effects to operate the presence of a coherent scene setting is required. Bar (2003, 2004) has recently outlined a possible neural substrate for such a mechanism. Specifically, a coarse analysis of background and objects during the very first glance at a scene is assumed to project in parallel to the parahippocampal cortex (PHC) where it activates scene schemas, and to the prefrontal cortex where it activates a set of “initial guesses” about the possible identity of objects present in the scene. Both the activated schema and the set of possible objects project to inferior temporal (IT) cortex where they modulate the activation of stored object representations and thus facilitate the object recognition process. Because the episodic associations between objects are not stored in the object lexion itself (IT) but in the contextual associations stored in PHC, activation of those associations by the global setting information contained in a full scene is required to observe episodic priming effects.

5. Conclusion: Time to put a transsaccadic theory of recognition on the agenda

Earlier in this chapter, I have attempted to clarify why, in my opinion, current prominent theories of object and scene recognition provide no account of how recognition is achieved on the basis of information gathered from multiple distinct samples of the viewed stimulus, which are collected on spatially and temporally disparate fixations. Two reasons were identified why transsaccadic information integration is neglected in models of visual recognition.

First, there is the widespread conviction that the human visual system is so powerful that one short glance, well below the modal fixation duration, is more than enough to recognize a scene or an object. In a brief review of the existing evidence for that claim, I have tried to show that from a strictly chronometric point of view, single-fixation perception is sufficient to make low-level discriminations between object and scene categories, but may quite often fall short of true recognition. This would necessitate a second fixation if recognition is what the visual system tries to achieve before it moves on the next stimulus or stimulus location. Naturally, identification may not always be the goal of scene exploration (e.g., in single feature search, only the feature value is important not the spatio-temporal entity it is bound to). However, when identification is task-relevant then taking a second shot is likely to yield more reliable results than single-shot perception.

Second, for many years the very notion of transsaccadic information integration has been severely challenged by studies demonstrating (transsaccadic) change blindness and research disproving transsaccadic spatiotopic fusion. This has culminated in the prominent theoretical position that transsaccadic integration is a non-functional concept, because a visual on-line representation of the outside world is superfluous, given that the world itself can continuously be sampled anew on every fixation. In reply to this line of reasoning, I have reviewed evidence that shows that transsaccadic change blindness can easily be undone to reveal the presence of a visual on-line representation. In addition, I have reported new evidence indicating that during scene exploration, viewers routinely use the object information provided in a presaccadic, extrafoveal preview to speed up subsequent processing of that object during its postsaccadic foveation.

In conclusion, I hope to have shown that there are both chronometric and functional arguments to defend the claim that theories of object and scene recognition should make it their business to find out how the visual system exploits the advantage of having multiple extrafoveal and foveal samples of a stimulus in order to speed up and enhance the reliability of stimulus recognition. How exactly presaccadic identity hypotheses may influence postsaccadic foveal processing is outside the present scope, but answers to this question are bound to emerge from a rapidly growing set of studies on reverse hierarchy theory (Ahissar & Hochstein, 1997; Hochstein & Ahissar, 2002), the distinction between feedforward and recurrent processing modes in vision (Lamme & Roelfsema, 2000; Ullman, 1996), and the notion of re-entrant visual processes (DiLollo et al., 2000). Despite some variations in naming, all these theories are centered around the claim that bottom-up and top-down processing streams can be distinguished behaviorally and neurophysiologically but are not functionally segregated. Specifically, all these theories propose that visual perception involves two streams of processing: A rapid, automatic, and pre-attentive feedforward sweep of activation through the informational and cortical hiearchy which activates high-level, categorical stimulus representations; and a slower, attention-modulated, re-entrant or recurrent stream of processing originating in the higher-level representations and with a modulating effect on ongoing bottom-up processing of visual input.

The strength of this framework is twofold. First, it is sufficiently precise to outline testable mechanisms of how high-level categorical representations are integrated with lower-level, precategorical representations of the visual input, and this both at the computational level (e.g., Di Lollo et al., 2000; Di Lollo, Enns, & Rensink, 2002) and at the level of specific cortical mechanisms (e.g., Bar, 2003). Second, it is based on both psychophysical effects such as object substitution masking (e.g., Enns & DiLollo, 1997, 2001; Jiang & Chun, 2001; Lleras & Moore, 2003) and on neurophysiological data such as the existence of massive backprojections in the cortical hierarchy (Salin & Bullier, 1995) or the finding that over the course of their response, V1 neurons change their tuning from simple to more complex stimuli (Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002). By applying this framework to our eye-movement paradigms which were developed to study perception within the spatial and temporal information-integration constraints imposed by the oculomotor system, we should be able to develop a detailed account of the mechanisms involved in transsaccadic recognition of objects and scenes.

Acknowledgement

The writing of this chapter was supported by research grant GOA 2005/03 of the Research Fund K. U. Leuven and conventions G.0583.05 and 7.005.05 of the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders.

References

Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1997). Task difficulty and learning specificity: Reverse hierarchies in sensory processing and perceptual learning. Nature, 387, 401–406.

Altmann, G., van Nice, K., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459–484.

Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15, 106–111.

Antes, J. R., & Penland, J. G. (1981). Picture context effects on eye movement patterns. In D. F. Fisher, R. A. Monty, & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye Movements: Cognition and Visual Perception (pp. 157–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Archambault, A., O’Donnell, C., & Schyns, P. G. (1999). Blind to object changes: When learning the same object at different levels of categorization modifies its perception. Psychological Science, 10, 249–255.

Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.

Bar, M. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600–609.

Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 617–629.

Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–148.

Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1988). Surface vs edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 38–64.

Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R. J., & Rabinowitz, J. C. (1982). Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143–177.

Bridgeman, B., & Mayer, M. (1983). Failure to integrate visual information from successive fixations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 285–286.

Bridgeman, B., Van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Velichkovsky, B. M. (1994). A theory of visual stability across saccadic eye movements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 247–292.

Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Eye guidance (pp. 53–77). Oxford: University Press.

Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664–695.

Carlson, L. A. (1999). Memory for relational information across eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 919–934.

Chun, M. M., & Nakayama, K. (2000). On the functional role of implicit visual memory for the adaptive deployment of attention across scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 65–81.

Cook, A. E., & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.

Crane, H. D., & Steele, C. M. (1985). Generation-V dual-Purkinje-image eyetracker. Applied optics, 24, 527–537.

Crundall, D. (2005). The integration of top-down and bottom-up factors in visual search while driving. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Eye Guidance(pp. 283–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Graef, P. (1992). Scene-context effects and models of real-world perception. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: scene perception and reading (pp. 243–259). New York: Springer.

De Graef, P., Christiaens, D., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1990). Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification. Psychological Research, 52, 317–329.

De Graef, P., & Verfaillie, K. (2002). Transsaccadic memory for visual object detail. Progress in Brain Research, 140, 181–196.

De Graef, P., Verfaillie, K., Germeys, F., Gysen, V., & Van Eccelpoel, C. (2001). Trans-saccadic representation makes your Porsche go places. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 981–982.

De Graef, P., Verfaillie, K., & Lamote, C. (2001). Transsaccadic coding of object position: Effects of saccadic status and allocentric reference frame. Psychologica Belgica, 41, 29–54.

Delorme, A., Rousselet, G. A., Macé, M. J.-M., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2004). Interaction of top-down and bottom-up processing in the fast visual analysis of natural scenes. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 103–113.

Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Bridgeman, B. (2002). Transsaccadic memory of position and form. Progress in Brain Research, 140, 165–180.

Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481–507.

Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2002). Object substitution without reentry? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 594–596.

Edelman, S. (1999). Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object substitution: A new form of masking in unattended visual locations.

Psychological Science, 8, 135–138.

Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2001). An object substitution theory of visual masking. In T. F. Shipley, & P. J. Kellman (Eds.), From fragments to objects: Segmentation and grouping in vision(pp. 121–143). New York: Elsevier Science.

Feldman, J. A. (1987). A functional model of vision and space. In M. Arbib, & A. Hanson (Eds.), Vision, Brain, and Cooperative Computation (pp. 531–562). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fernandez-Duque, D., Grossi, G., Thornton, I. M., & Neville, H. J. (2003). Representation of change: Separate electrophysiological markers of attention, awareness, and implicit processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 491–507.

Fernandez-Duque, D., & Thornton, I. M. (2000). Change detection without awareness: Do explicit reports underestimate the representation of change in the visual system? Visual Cognition, 7, 323–344.

Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316–355.

Germeys, F., De Graef, P., & Verfaillie, K. (2002). Transsaccadic identification of saccade target and flanker objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 868–883.

Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (2000). The role of physical and conceptual properties in preserving object continuity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 136–150.

Grimes, J. (1996). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. In K. Akins (Ed.), Perception (Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, (pp. 89–110). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gysen, V., Verfaillie, K., & De Graef, P. (2002). The effect of stimulus blanking on the detection of intrasaccadic displacements of translating objects. Vision Research, 42, 2021–2030.

Hayhoe, M. M. (2000). Vision using routines: A functional account of vision. Visual Cognition, 7, 43–64. Hayhoe, M. M., Bensinger, D. G., & Ballard, D. H. (1998). Task constraints in visual working memory. Vision

Research, 38, 125–137.

Hayhoe, M. M., Karn, K., Magnuson, J., & Mruczek, R. (2001). Spatial representations across fixations for saccadic targeting. Psychologica Belgica, 41, 55–74.

Henderson, J. M. (1992). Identifying objects across saccades: Effects of extrafoveal preview and flanker object context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 521–530.

Henderson, J. M. (1993). Eye movement control during visual object processing: Effects of initial fixation position and semantic constraint. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 79–98.

Henderson, J. M. (1997). Transsaccadic memory and integration during real-world object perception.

Psychological Science, 8, 51–55.

Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504.

Henderson, J. M., & Anes, M. D. (1994). Roles of object-file review and type priming in visual identification within and across eye fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 826–839.

Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1998). Eye movements during scene viewing: An overview. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 269–298). Oxford: Elsevier.

Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). The role of fixation position in detecting scene changes across saccades. Psychological Science, 10, 438–443.

Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (2003). Eye movements and visual memory: Detecting changes to saccade targets in scenes. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 58–71.

Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (2003). Global transsaccadic change blindness during scene perception.

Psychological Science, 14, 493–497.

Henderson, J. M., Weeks, P. A. Jr., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 210–228.

Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791–804.

Hollingworth, A. (2004). Constructing visual representations of natural scenes: The roles of shortand long-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 519–537.

Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (1998). Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 398–415.

Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 113–136.

Hyöna, J., Niemi, P., & Underwood, G. (1989). Reading long words embedded in sentences: Informativeness of word parts affects eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 142–152.

Intraub, H. (1981). Identification and processing of briefly glimpsed visual scenes. In D. F. Fisher, R. A. Monty, & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and Visual Perception (pp. 181–190). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Irwin, D. E. (1991). Information integration across saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 420–456. Irwin, D. E. (1996). Integrating information across saccadic eye movements. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 5, 94–100.

Irwin, D. E. (1998). Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1–27. Irwin, D. E., & Andrews, R. V. (1996). Integration and accumulation of information across saccadic eye

movements. In T. Inui, & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 125–155). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2002). Eye movements and scene perception: Memory for things observed.

Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 882–895.

Jiang, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Asymmetric object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 27, 895–918.

Johnson, J. S., & Olshausen, B. A. (2003). Timecourse of neural signatures of object recognition. Journal of Vision, 3, 499–512.

Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363–372.

Keysers, C., Xiao, D.-K., Földiák, P., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). The speed of sight. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 90–101.

Khayat, P. S., Spekreijse, H., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2004). Visual information transfer across eye movements in the monkey. Vision Research, 44, 2901–2917.

Kroll, J. F., & Potter, M. C. (1984). Recognizing words, pictures, and concepts: A comparison of lexical, object, and reality decisions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 39–66.

Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 571–579.

Lamme, V. A. F., Zipser, K., & Spekreijse, H. (2002). Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1044–1053.

Land, M. F., & Furneaux, S. (1997). The knowledge base of the oculomotor system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, SeriesB: Biological Sciences, 352, 1231–1239.

Land, M. F., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2001). In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities?

Vision Research, 41, 3559–3565.

Land, M. F., Mennie, N., & Rusted, J. (1999). The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities in daily living. Perception, 28, 1311–1328.

Large, M.-E., Kiss, I., & McMullen, P. A. (2004). Electrophysiological correlates of object categorization: back to basics. Cognitive Brain Research, 20.

Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 106–120.

Loftus, G. R., Kaufman, L., Nishimoto, T., & Ruthruff, E. (1992). Effects of visual degradation on eye fixation durations, perceptual processing, and long-term visual memory. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 203–226). New York: Springer Verlag.

Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281.

Matin, E. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 899–917.

Matin, L. (1986). Visual localization and eye movements. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),

Handbook of perception and human performance(Vol. 1, pp. 20.1–20.45). New York: Wiley.

McConkie, G. W., & Currie, C. B. (1996). Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 563–581.

McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1976). Identifying the span of the effective stimulus in reading: Literature review and theories of reading. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1979). Is visual information integrated across succesive fixations in reading?

Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 221–224.

Melcher, D. (2001). Persistence of visual memory for scenes. Nature, 412, 401.

Melcher, D. (2006). Accumulation and persistence of memory for natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 8–17. Melcher, D., & Kowler, E. (1999). Shape, surfaces and saccades. Vision Research, 39, 2929–2946.

Melcher, D., & Morrone, M. C. (2003). Spatiotopic temporal integration of visual motion across saccadic eye movements. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 877–881.

O’Regan, J. K. (1992). Optimal viewing position in words and the strategy-tactics theory of eye movements in reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye Movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading

(pp. 333–354). New York: Springer Verlag.

O’Regan, J. K. (1992). Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory.

Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461–488.

O’Regan, J. K., Deubel, H., Clark, J. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Picture changes during blinks: Looking without seeing and seeing without looking. Visual Cognition, 7, 191–211.

O’Regan, J. K., & Nöe, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031.

O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of “mudsplashes”. Nature, 398, 34.

Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2001). Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision, 42, 145–175.

Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162.

190 P. De Graef

Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1992). What is integrated across fixations? In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 166–191). New York: Springer.

Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K., & Collins, W. E. (1984). Integrating pictorial information across eye movements.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 426–442.

Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Role of spatial location in integration of pictorial information across saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 199–210.

Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 509–522.

Prime, S. L., Niemeier, M., & Crawford, J. D. (2006). Transsaccadic integration of visual features in a line intersection task. Experimental Brain Research, 169, 532–548.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.

Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.

Rayner, K., Inhoff, A. W., Morrison, R. E., Slowiaczek, M. L., & Bertera, J. H. (1981). Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 167–179.

Rayner, K., Liversedge, S. P., & White, S. J. (2006). Eye movements when reading disappearing text: The importance of the word to the right of fixation. Vision Research, 46, 310–323.

Rayner, K., & Morris, R. K. (1992). Eye movement control in reading: Evidence against semantic preprocessing.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 163–172.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1992). Eye movements and scene perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 342–376.

Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188–1200.

Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504–509.

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1999). Eye movement control in reading: Accounting for initial fixation locations and refixations within the E-Z reader model. Vision Research, 39, 4403–4411.

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.

Reingold, E. M., & Charness, N. (2005). Perception in chess: Evidence from eye movements. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance(pp. 325–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rensink, R. A. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 17–42. Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.

Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (2000). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across brief interruptions. Visual Cognition, 7, 127–145.

Rieger, J. W., Braun, C., Bülthoff, H. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2005). The dynamics of visual pattern masking in natural scene processing. Journal of Vision, 5, 275–286.

Ross, J., Morrone, M. C., Goldberg, M. E., & Burr, D. (2001). Changes in visual perception at the time of saccades. Trends in Neurosciences, 24, 113–121.

Salin, P., & Bullier, J. (1995). Corticocortical connections in the visual system: structure and function.

Physiological Reviews, 75, 107–154.

Sanders, A. F., & van Duren, L. L. (1998). Stimulus control of visual fixation duration in a single saccade paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 99, 163–176.

Schendan, H. E., & Kutas, M. (2003). Time course of processes and representations supporting visual object identification and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 111–135.

Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguitiy: Evidence from an eye movement paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582–595.

Shinoda, H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Shrivastava, A. (2001). What controls attention in natural environments? Vision Research, 41, 3535–3545.

Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 1–15.

Simons, D. J., & Ambinder, M. S. (2005). Change blindness: theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 44–48.

Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 16–20.

Tatler, B. (2002). What information survives saccades in the real world? Progress in Brain Research, 140, 149–163.

Tatler, B., Gilchrist, I. D., & Rusted, J. (2003). The time course of abstract visual representation. Perception, 32, 579–592.

Tatler, B. W., Gilchrist, I. D., & Land, M. F. (2005). Visual memory for objects in natural scenes: From fixations to object files. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 931–960.

Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1–20.

Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520–522.

Ullman, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van Diepen, P. M. J., & De Graef, P. (1994). Line-drawing library and software toolbox (Psyc. Rep. No.165).

Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology.

van Diepen, P. M. J., De Graef, P., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1995). Chronometry of foveal information extraction during scene perception. In J. M. Findlay, R. Walker, & R. W. Kentridge (Eds.), Eye movement research: Mechanisms, processes and applications (pp. 349–362). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

van Diepen, P. M. J., Ruelens, L., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1999). Brief foveal masking during scene perception.

Acta Psychologica, 101, 91–103.

van Duren, L. L., & Sanders, A. F. (1992). The output code of a visual fixation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 305–308.

Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler. M., J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 454, 225–258.

VanRullen, R., & Thorpe, S. (2001). The time course of visual processing: From early perception to decisionmaking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 454–461.

Verfaillie, K. (1997). Transsaccadic memory for the egocentric and allocentric position of a biological-motion walker. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 739–760.

Verfaillie, K., & De Graef, P. (2000). Transsaccadic memory for position and orientation of saccade source and target. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1243–1259.

Verfaillie, K., De Graef, P., Germeys, F., Gysen, V., & Van Eccelpoel, C. (2001). Selective transsaccadic coding of object and event-diagnostic information. Psychologica Belgica, 41, 89–114.

Wade, N., & Tatler, B. W. (2005). The moving tablet of the eye: The origins of modern eye movement research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., & Dahlen, K. (2000). Postattentive vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 693–716.

This page intentionally left blank