The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing.

By Victor A. F. Lamme, Pieter R. Roelfsema. 2000

2,421 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroscience

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Beyond Skip Connections: Top-Down Modulation for Object Detection (2016, background): “There is strong evidence of such top-down context, feedback and lateral processing in the human visual pathway [7, 13, 15, 25, 28, 30, 31, 37, 53, 54]; wherein, the topdown signals are responsible for modulating low-level features [13, 15, 37, 53, 54] as well as act as attentional mechanism for sele”
Deep Networks with Internal Selective Attention through Feedback Connections (2014, background): “Analysis of response latencies to a newly-presented image lends credence to the theory that there are two stages of visual processing: a fast, pre-attentive phase, due to feedforward processing, followed by an attentional phase, due to the influence of recurrent processing [31].”
Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. (2014, neutral): “This stage may also include the basic processing of a fast feed-forward gist capture as postulated by Lamme and Roelfsema (2000) or Hochstein and Ahissar (2002).”
Feed-Forward Segmentation of Figure-Ground and Assignment of Border-Ownership (2010, background): “In the visual cortex contextual influences on neuronal activity have been interpreted as the neural substrate of figureground perception [1].”
MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond (2013, background): “As is known for neurons in visual cortex (Lamme and Roelfsema, 2000), the contribution of LIFC may well-vary with time, as a consequence of the different dynamic cortical networks in which it is embedded at different time slices.”
On the Time Course of Visual Word Recognition: An Event-related Potential Investigation using Masked Repetition Priming (2006, background): “Evidence from single-cell work in monkeys (e.g., Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002; Lamme & Roelfsema, 2000) and recent magnetoencephalogram work (Rieger, Braum, Bulthoff, & Gegenfurtner, 2005) in humans suggests that this sort of backward masking works by allowing the initial feed-forward volley…”
The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing (2016, background): “…days of explicit, object discrimination training can increase the efficiency of distinguishing among pairings of Gabor patches with particular tilts paired with tones of specific frequencies, as evidenced by reductions in strength of the eMSI that these stimuli trigger (Altieri et al. 2015).”
The Neurobehavioral Nature of Fishes and the Question of Awareness and Pain (2002, background): “We are unaware of activity confined to primary sensory cortex (Koch and Crick, 2000; Lamme and Roelfsma, 2000; Laureys et al., 2000c; Libet, 1999; Rees et al., 2000).”
Object perception as Bayesian inference. (2004, background): “The generative aspect of Bayesian models is suggestive of the ascending and descending pathways that connect the visual areas in primates (Bullier 2001,Lamme & Roelfsema 2000,Lee & Mumford 2003, Zipser et al 1996, Albright & Stoner 2002).”
Why visual attention and awareness are different. (2003, background): “By ,80 ms most visual areas are activated and at 120 ms visual activation can be found in all cortical areas, including motor cortex [ 30 ].”
Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. (2010, background): “More specifically, Lamme and Roelfsema (2000) distinguished the”
Wait and see. (2001, background): “Lamme and Roelfsema 2000 considered the feedforward sweep from V1 to the following visual areas important for pre-attentive vision.”
A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior (2013, background): “These latencies are consistent with the time scale required to develop a conscious sensory experience (45) and with the time required to build up distributed causal interactions in thalamocortical networks through feed-forward and reentrant connections (46, 47).”
Brain-Like Object Recognition with High-Performing Shallow Recurrent ANNs (2019, background): “(3) Recurrent: while core object recognition was originally believed to be largely feedforward because of its fast time scale [6], it has long been suspected that recurrent connections must be relevant for some aspects of object perception [20, 1, 43], and recent studies have shown their role even a”
How Prediction Errors Shape Perception, Attention, and Motivation (2012, background): “This view is corroborated by the fact that in the brain, “waves” of feedforward and feedback activity have been observed (Lamme and Roelfsema, 2000) and that feedback connections greatly outweigh feedforward connections, even in very basic sensory areas such as between V1 and LGN (Peters et al.,…”