Visual search for featural singletons: No top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming

By Jan Theeuwes, B. Reimann, K. Mortier. 2006

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. (2010, background): “For example, in Theeuwes et al. (2006) we cued observers with 80% validity about the likely feature property of the upcoming target singleton (see Figure 4).”
Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set (2006, background): “For example, when observers have to make a discrimination about a property that is orthogonal to the target’s defining pop-out characteristic (e.g., if the object has a ‘‘chip’’ in the left or right side), the dimensional effects can be weak while feature priming effects remain intact (see Kumada, 2”
Locus of dimension weighting: Preattentive or postselective? (2006, background): “In contrast, Cohen (e.g., Cohen & Magen, 1999) and Theeuwes (e.g., Theeuwes et al., 2006 this issue) have recently argued that these effects are postselective, response-related in nature.”
Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. (2006, unknown): “The capture may have been caused by priming, rather than by memory, as the brief activation of an image in itself may be sufficient to induce prioritization of a matching object (cf. Theeuwes, Reimann, & Mortier, 2006 ).”