A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology.

611 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.

Through the eyes of dieters: Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes (2011, background): “…the mechanism underlying these differences in size perception, neuroscientific studies suggest that this may be caused by more allocation of processing resources to goal-relevant objects in the visual cortex, while dysfunctional objects are inhibited (e.g., Bundesen et al., 2005; Serences, 2008).”
Pip and pop: nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. (2008, background): “Within many attention models, the top-down activation further biases the competition between objects within the saliency map by interacting with the bottom-up signals (Bundesen, Habekost, & Kyllingsbæk, 2005; Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Treisman & Sato, 1990; Wolfe, 1994).”
Visual search: a retrospective. (2011, methodology): “Others have proposed that processing is parallel but has limited capacity (Bundesen, Habekost, & Kyllingsbaek, 2005): Either the rate at which each item is processed is inversely related to the number of items that are processed in parallel or the quality of processing of an item degrades as…”