Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control

IF 1.5 4区心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES

Vision Research Pub Date : 2024-02-21 DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2024.108366

Brian A. Anderson

{"title":"Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control","authors":"Brian A. Anderson","doi":"10.1016/j.visres.2024.108366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The control of attention was long held to reflect the influence of two competing mechanisms of assigning priority, one goal-directed and the other stimulus-driven. Learning-dependent influences on the control of attention that could not be attributed to either of those two established mechanisms of control gave rise to the concept of selection history and a corresponding third mechanism of attentional control. The trichotomy framework that ensued has come to dominate theories of attentional control over the past decade, replacing the historical dichotomy. In this theoretical review, I readily affirm that distinctions between the influence of goals, salience, and selection history are substantive and meaningful, and that abandoning the dichotomy between goal-directed and stimulus-driven mechanisms of control was appropriate. I do, however, question whether a theoretical trichotomy is the right answer to the problem posed by selection history. If we reframe the influence of goals and selection history as different flavors of memory-dependent modulations of attentional priority and if we characterize the influence of salience as a consequence of insufficient competition from such memory-dependent sources of priority, it is possible to account for a wide range of attention-related phenomena with only one mechanism of control. The monolithic framework for the control of attention that I propose offers several concrete advantages over a trichotomy framework, which I explore here.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23670,"journal":{"name":"Vision Research","volume":"217 ","pages":"Article 108366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698924000105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The control of attention was long held to reflect the influence of two competing mechanisms of assigning priority, one goal-directed and the other stimulus-driven. Learning-dependent influences on the control of attention that could not be attributed to either of those two established mechanisms of control gave rise to the concept of selection history and a corresponding third mechanism of attentional control. The trichotomy framework that ensued has come to dominate theories of attentional control over the past decade, replacing the historical dichotomy. In this theoretical review, I readily affirm that distinctions between the influence of goals, salience, and selection history are substantive and meaningful, and that abandoning the dichotomy between goal-directed and stimulus-driven mechanisms of control was appropriate. I do, however, question whether a theoretical trichotomy is the right answer to the problem posed by selection history. If we reframe the influence of goals and selection history as different flavors of memory-dependent modulations of attentional priority and if we characterize the influence of salience as a consequence of insufficient competition from such memory-dependent sources of priority, it is possible to account for a wide range of attention-related phenomena with only one mechanism of control. The monolithic framework for the control of attention that I propose offers several concrete advantages over a trichotomy framework, which I explore here.

查看原文本刊更多论文

三分法重温：注意力控制的单一理论

长期以来，人们认为注意力的控制反映了两种相互竞争的优先分配机制的影响，一种是目标导向型，另一种是刺激驱动型。学习对注意控制的影响不能归因于这两种既定的控制机制，于是产生了选择历程的概念和相应的第三种注意控制机制。在过去的十年中，"三分法 "框架取代了 "历史二分法"，成为注意力控制理论的主流。在这篇理论综述中，我欣然肯定了目标、显著性和选择历史的影响之间的区别是实质性的、有意义的，并认为放弃目标导向型和刺激驱动型控制机制之间的二分法是恰当的。然而，我质疑的是，理论上的三分法是否是解决选择史问题的正确答案。如果我们把目标和选择历程的影响重新定义为对注意优先级的不同记忆调控，如果我们把显著性的影响描述为这种记忆优先级来源竞争不充分的结果，那么就有可能只用一种控制机制来解释一系列与注意相关的现象。与三分法框架相比，我所提出的注意力控制一元化框架具有几个具体优势，我将在此进行探讨。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Vision Research 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

111

审稿时长

66 days

期刊介绍： Vision Research is a journal devoted to the functional aspects of human, vertebrate and invertebrate vision and publishes experimental and observational studies, reviews, and theoretical and computational analyses. Vision Research also publishes clinical studies relevant to normal visual function and basic research relevant to visual dysfunction or its clinical investigation. Functional aspects of vision is interpreted broadly, ranging from molecular and cellular function to perception and behavior. Detailed descriptions are encouraged but enough introductory background should be included for non-specialists. Theoretical and computational papers should give a sense of order to the facts or point to new verifiable observations. Papers dealing with questions in the history of vision science should stress the development of ideas in the field.