Behavioral and Brain Sciences最新文献

We examine "allocentric" neglect from Rosenholtz's perspective, focusing on visual limitations in the periphery rather than attention. Studies of allocentric neglect report no or limited data on visual field defects and extinction. We propose that if visual input is degraded, patients may fail to detect the left part of the stimulus and complete it perceptually (preattentively) rather than attentionally.

The commentaries debated numerous points in the target article. Many questioned the existence of a crisis and the benefits of a paradigm shift, even though none countered the listed signs of a crisis. Paradigm shifts are an important way that science progresses. There remains hope for a unifying theory, and for a reawakening of an ambitious science of visual attention.

We agree that while there is a "crisis" in visual attention, the Rosenholtz' article does not offer bold enough solutions. We argue that the real crisis extends beyond attention, reflecting a broader need for theoretical integration. Addressing this requires abandoning artificial subdivisions and adopting a more ecologically valid, contextually grounded approach to cognition.

We suggest that the crisis in visual attention is caused by problems prevalent in many other areas of psychology: low-power experiments and questionable research practices. We demonstrate that many attention experiments use sample sizes that are several orders of magnitude too small and argue that it is unreasonable to expect theoretical clarity based on such unreliable empirical data.

Rosenholtz is right that the multiple meanings of attention hinder development of a unified attention theory, but this is not a crisis. Embracing its diversity can advance fields like clinical psychology. However, inattentional blindness challenges attempts to move beyond attention as an explanatory concept. I illustrate this by highlighting attentional set, which demonstrates selective prioritization rather than mere task constraints.

Understanding the limits of visual processing is at the core of understanding visual attention. Rosenholtz proposes task complexity as a potential solution to identify a putative unifying capacity limit. We argue that if task complexity is indeed used to identify a unifying limit, effort must crucially be incorporated to prevent a future crisis in the field of visual attention.

The debate on attention's validity in cognitive psychology persists. However, attention remains essential beyond peripheral vision constraints, as it is a resource-limited process (Norman & Bobrow, 1975). The outright dismissal of attention proposed in the target article risks conceptual voids without superior alternatives. Instead, refining attention as a theoretical framework offers a pragmatic path for advancing cognitive research.

The groundbreaking, anti-homuncular view presented by the author complements conclusions from diverse areas of research, including (a) research on phenomena not concerning attention (e.g., involving anosognosia, scotomata, dreams, and consciousness) and (b) the hypothesis that attention should be construed as an effect (e.g., from the activation of priority signals and task sets) rather than as a cause.

Visual Attention in Crisis provides the reader with an alternative way to think about the visual attention phenomena-often interpretable in terms of perceptual processes and peripheral vision. We urge an extension of these considerations to developmental science. Infancy research underpins the foundations of mature attentional mechanisms. It may offer a critical test for evolving perceptual limits on attention.

While I agree with Rosenholtz that attention as mechanism should often be "banned"-this conception is confused and often explanatorily useless-I suggest that the real crisis is the proliferation of different, too often underspecified, mechanisms as attention. Attention is not an explainer. It is what we are trying to explain. Confusion on this point leads to unnecessary theoretical disunity.