VISUAL ATTENTION 217 218 DESIMONE DUNCAN the same receptive field.These mechanisms may work in a similar fashion Colby CL1991 Neurol for both obiect and spatial selection.In some cases.these inputs are directly 6597 revealed through elevation of the maintained activity of cells coding the location or feature of the expected item.The critical difference between AD.1986 Working Memory.Oxford i spatial and feature selection may be the source and nature of the selection .T emplate 4.Because many spatially mapped structures contibute to competition,uni lateral lesions will often cause neglect and extinction omes that do A ons 1 5. ations and objects are prob ablyrivedfrom neural circuits mediatine workine memory.perhaps Begl especially in prerrontal cortex. 6.Objects act as wholes in neural competition.The construction of object 180 representations from the conjunction of many different features appears,in many cases,to occur in parallel across the visual field before individual Ben F.Koch C obiects are selected and.hence.prior to any attentional binding 8ia55:95362 7.Though the matter remains controversial,according to our analysis attention is not a high-speed mental spotlight that scans each item in the visual field. Rather,attention is an emergent property of slow,competitive interactions M.1976.The co that work in parallel across the visual field. Tm34餐 1984.5im ACKNOWLEDGMENTS De WearetoL Chelazzi,C Colby.PDeWeerd,EK Miller,M Mishki to R Hoag and LG Ung the manuscript ual dis for help with 8621 The wo n part by the 日 dD.Desin e R Ung der LG 1994M Organization. Any A 90A5gofieulateniom Bus 5783 a10 Literature Cited Desimone R.Ungerleider LG1989 echa Ha I Miezin F.McGui Allpon DA.1993. hine:Com ork:E eld: 54115 sms for】 MIT Pres 36534547 e cD1963A01R0 80-90 VISUAL ATTENTION 217 the same receptive field. These mechanisms may work in a similar fashion for both object and spatial selection. In some cases, these inputs are directly revealed through elevation of the maintained activity of cells coding the location or feature of the expected item. The critical difference between spatial and feature selection may be the source and nature of the selection template. 4. Because many spatially mapped structures contribute to competition, uni￾lateral lesions will often cause neglect and extinction syndromes that do not necessarily imply a specific role in attentional control. 5. The top-down selection templates for both locations and objects are prob￾ably derived from neural circuits mediating working memory, perhaps especially in prefrontal cortex. 6. Objects act as wholes in neural competition. The construction of object representations from the conjunction of many different features appears, in many cases, to occur in parallel across the visual field before individual objects are selected and, hence, prior to any attentional binding. 7. Though the matter remains controversial, according to our analysis attention is not a high-speed mental spotlight that scans each item in the visual field. Rather, attention is an emergent property of slow, competitive interactions that work in parallel across the visual field. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to L Chelazzi, C Colby, P DeWeerd, EK Miller, M Mishkin, DL Robinson, and LG Ungerleider for helpful comments on the manuscript; to R Hoag for help with references; and to M Adams for help with figures. The work was supported in part by the Human Frontiers Science Program Organization. Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter, may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service. 1-800-347-8007; 415-259-$017; email: arpr@class.org Literature Cited Allman J, Miezin F, McGuinness E. 1985. Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field: neurophysiological mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 8:407- 30 Allport DA. 1980. Attention and performance. In Cognitive Psycholology: New Directions, ed. G. Claxton, pp. 112-53. London: Rout￾ledge & Kegan Paul Allport DA. 1993. Attention and control: have we been asking the wrong questions? A crit￾ical review of twenty-five years. In Attention and Performance XIV, ed. DE Meyer, S Kornblum, pp. 183-218. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press Anderson CH, Van Essen DC. 1987. Shifter circuits: a computational strategy for dy- namic aspects of visual processing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84:6297-6301 www.annualreviews.org/aronline Annual Reviews Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1995.18:193-222. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of California - San Diego on 01/05/07. For personal use only. 218 DESIMONE & DUNCAN Atkinson RC, Holmgren JE, Juola JF. 1969. Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display. Percept. Psy￾chophys. 6:321-26 Baddeley AD. 1986. Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Baylis GC, Rolls ET. 1987. Responses of neu￾rons in the inferior temporal cortex in short term and serial recognition memory tasks. Exp. Brain Res. 65:614-22 Beck J, Prazdny K, Rosenfeld A. 1983. A the￾ory of texture segmentation. In Human and Machine Vision, ed. J Beck, B Hope, A Rosenfeld, pp. 1-38. London: Academic Begleiter H, Porjesz B, Wang W. 1993. A neu￾rophysiologic correlate of visual short-term memory in humans. Electroenceph. Clin. NeurophysioL 87:46-53 Bender DB. 1981. Retinotopic organization of macaque pulvinar. J. Neurophysiol. 46:672- 93 Bender DB, Butter CM. 1987. Comparison of the effects of superior colliculus and pulvinar lesions on visual search and tachistoscopic pattern discrimination in monkeys. Exp. Brain Res. 69:140-54 Benevento LA, Rezak M. 1976. The cortical projections of the inferior pulvinar and adja￾cent lateral pulvinar in the rhesus monkey (macaca mulatta): an autoradiographic study. Brain Res. 108:1-24 Bisiach E, Vallar G. 1988. Hemineglect in hu￾mans. In Handbook ofNeuropsychology, ed. F Boiler, J Grafman, 1:195-222. Amsterdam: Elsevier Bonnel A-M, Stein J-F, Bertucci P. 1992. Does attention modulate the perception of lumi￾nance changes? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 44A: 601-26 Boussaoud D, Desimone R, Ungerleider LG. 1991. Visual topography of area TEO in the macaque. J. Comp. Neurol. 306:554-75 Broadbent DE. 1958. Perception and Commu￾nication. London: Pergamon Bundesen C. 1990. A theory of visual attention. Psychol. Rev. 97:523-47 Bushell MC, Goldberg ME, Robinson DL. 1981. Behavioral enhancement of visual re￾sponses in monkey cerebral cortex. I. Mod￾ulation in posterior parietal cortex related to selective visual attention. J. Neurophysiol. 46:755-72 Carpenter GA, Grossberg S. 1987. A massively parallel architecture for a self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine. Comp. Vis. Graph. lmage Process. 37:54-115 Chelazzi L, Miller EK, Duncan J, Desimone R. 1993a. A neural basis for visual search in in￾ferior temporal cortex. Nature 363:345-47 Chelazzi L, Miller EK, Lueschow A. Desimone R. 1993b. Dual mechanisms of short-term memory: ventral prefrontal cortex. Soc. Neu￾rosci. Abstr. 19:975 Colby CL. 1991. The neuroanatomy and neu￾rophysiology of attention. J. Child Neurol. 6:$90-S118 Colby CL, Duhamel J, Goldberg ME. 1993. The analysis of visual space by the lateral in￾traparietal area of the monkey: the role of extraretinal signals. In Progress in Brain Re￾search, ed. TP Hicks, S Molotchnikoff, T Ono, pp. 307-16. Amsterdam: Elsevier Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Dobmeyer S, Shulman GL, Petersen SE. 1991. Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. J. Neu￾rosci. 11:2383-2402 Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Shulman GL, Petersen SE. 1993. A PET study of visuospatial atten￾tion. J. Neurosci. 13:1202-26 Crick F. 1984. The function of the thalamic reticular complex: the searchlight hypothe￾sis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81:4586-90 Crick F, Koch C. 1990. Some reflections on visual awareness. Cold Spring Harbor Syrup. Quant. Biol. 55:953--62 Desimone R. 1992. Neural circuits for visual attention in the palmate brain. In Neural Net￾works for Vision and Image Processing, ed. GA Carpenter, S Grossberg, pp. 343-64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Desimone R, Albdght TD, Gross CG, Bruce C. 1984. Stimulus-selective properties of infe￾rior temporal neurons in the macaque. J. Neu￾rosci. 4:2051-62 Desimone R, Li L, Lehky S, Ungerleider L, Mishkin M. 1990a. Effects of V4 lesions on visual discrimination performance and on re￾sponses of neurons in inferior temporal cor￾tex. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 16:621 Desimone R, Miller EK, Chelazzi L, Lueschow A. 1994. Multiple memory systems in the visual cortex. In The Cognitive and Neural Sciences, ed. M. Gazzaniga. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In press Desimone R, Scbein SJ. 1987. Visual properties of neurons in area V4 of the macaque: sen￾sitivity to stimulus form. J. Neurophysiol. 57:835-68 Desimone R, Schein S J, Moran J, Ungerieider LG. 1985. Contour, color and shape analysis beyond the stdate cortex. Vis. Res. 25:441-52 Desimone R, Ungedeider LG. 1989. Neural mechanisms of visual processing in mon￾keys. In Handbook ofNeuropsychology, Vol. 2, ed. F Boller, J Grafman, pp. 267-99. New York: Elsevier Desimone R, Wessinger M, Thomas L, Schnei￾der W. 1990b. Attentional control of visual perception: cortical and subcortical mecha￾nisms. Cold Spring Harbor Syrup. Quant. Biol. 55:963-71 Deutsch JA, Deutsch D. 1963. Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychol. Rev. 70: 80-90 www.annualreviews.org/aronline Annual Reviews Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1995.18:193-222. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of California - San Diego on 01/05/07. For personal use only