Distinct cognitive mechanisms involved in the processing of single objects and object ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral research has demonstrated that the shape and texture of single objects can be processed independently. Similarly, neuroimaging results have shown that an object's shape and texture are processed in distinct brain regions with shape in the lateral occipital area and texture in parahippocampal cortex. Meanwhile, objects are not always seen in isolation and are often grouped together as an ensemble. We recently showed that the processing of ensembles also involves parahippocampal cortex and that the shape and texture of ensemble elements are processed together within this region. These neural data suggest that the independence seen between shape and texture in single-object perception would not be observed in object-ensemble perception. Here we tested this prediction by examining whether observers could attend to the shape of ensemble elements while ignoring changes in an unattended texture feature and vice versa. Across six behavioral experiments, we replicated previous findings of independence between shape and texture in single-object perception. In contrast, we observed that changes in an unattended ensemble feature negatively impacted the processing of an attended ensemble feature only when ensemble features were attended globally. When they were attended locally, thereby making ensemble processing similar to single-object processing, interference was abolished. Overall, these findings confirm previous neuroimaging results and suggest that distinct cognitive mechanisms may be involved in single-object and object-ensemble perception. Additionally, they show that the scope of visual attention plays a critical role in determining which type of object processing (ensemble or single object) is engaged by the visual system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".