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 ..." /> Is top-down control necessarily scarce, slow, and hence unimportant in visual selection? Here we outline the risks of downplaying top-down con..." /> Is top-down control necessarily scarce, slow, and hence unimportant in visual selection? Here we outline the risks of downplaying top-down con..." />

The Risks of Downplaying Top-Down Control

  • Sisk C
  • Remington R
  • Jiang Y
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

<p class="p1">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.</p>

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sisk, C. A., Remington, R. W., & Jiang, Y. V. (2018). The Risks of Downplaying Top-Down Control. Journal of Cognition, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.26

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free