z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Risks of Downplaying Top-Down Control
Author(s) -
Caitlin A. Sisk,
Roger W. Remington,
Yuhong Jiang
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of cognition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2514-4820
DOI - 10.5334/joc.26
Subject(s) - top down and bottom up design , selection (genetic algorithm) , control (management) , cornerstone , attentional control , cognitive psychology , unitary state , visual attention , visual search , psychology , selective attention , computer science , political science , cognition , neuroscience , history , artificial intelligence , law , software engineering , archaeology
Is top-down control necessarily scarce, slow, and hence unimportant in visual selection? Here we outline the risks of downplaying top-down control. Contrary to Theeuwes’ review, we suggest that not all sources of attention map onto a unitary attentional priority map. Goals and search habits may influence where and how people deploy attention, respectively. Because goals have modulatory effects on sensory processing, their impact on attention is broad and not always deliberate. In addition, when multiple sources influence attention, top-down control often dominates over less deliberate forms of attention. We agree with Theeuwes that selection history can drive attention independent of explicit goals. Nonetheless, top-down control remains a cornerstone of visual selection.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom