Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Varieties of size-specific visual selection.

K R Cave1, S M Kosslyn

  • 1Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
|June 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Receptive field characteristics that allow parietal lobe neurons to encode spatial properties of visual input: a computational analysis.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same author

Visual Mental Imagery Activates Topographically Organized Visual Cortex: PET Investigations.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same author

Individual differences in cerebral blood flow in area 17 predict the time to evaluate visualized letters.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same author

Is cognitive neuropsychology plausible? The perils of sitting on a one-legged stool.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same author

Why are "What" and "Where" Processed by Separate Cortical Visual Systems? A Computational Investigation.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same author

Can we lose memories of faces? Content specificity and awareness in a prosopagnosic.

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·2013
Same journal

Executive function and social behavior: Causal evidence from loading working memory and inhibitory control.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Correction to "Your research is public engagement: A case for more intentional science communication in research with human subjects" by Vaughn (2026).

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Correction to "Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial" by Jacques-Hamilton et al. (2019).

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Conveying (discrete) emotionality with novel words.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Physical actions shape moral choices: Environment-directed movements reduce cheating in young children.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

From chunks to schemas: Learning in the Hebb repetition paradigm.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
See all related articles

Visual selection involves two distinct size adjustment processes. Response time varies with expected versus actual stimulus size, influencing visual processing scales.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Visual Perception
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • Visual selection mechanisms are crucial for processing complex scenes.
  • Attentional selection has been theorized to occur at the object representation level.
  • Understanding size-scaling processes is key to visual perception.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the relationship between stimulus size disparity and response time.
  • To differentiate between distinct visual size adjustment processes.
  • To re-evaluate existing models of attentional selection based on size-dependent mechanisms.

Main Methods:

  • Participants evaluated stimuli of varying sizes.
  • Response times were measured based on expected versus actual stimulus size.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis focused on identifying different size-scaling mechanisms.

    • Main Results:

    • Response time increases with the discrepancy between expected and actual stimulus size.
    • Two distinct size adjustment processes were identified: one shape-specific and slow, the other faster and non-shape-specific.
    • Both processes are size-dependent and likely operate at a low, spatially organized processing level.

    Conclusions:

    • The findings suggest two parallel visual selection mechanisms based on size scaling.
    • These mechanisms provide an alternative explanation for phenomena previously attributed to attentional selection at higher levels.
    • Size-dependent processing at lower visual levels plays a significant role in visual selection.