Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.

By Jan Theeuwes. Acta Psychologica, 2010

1,375 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The present paper argues for the notion that when attention is spread across the visual field in the first sweep of information through the brain visual selection is completely stimulus-driven. Only later in time, through recurrent feedback processing, volitional control based on expectancy and goal set will bias visual selection in a top-down manner. Here we review behavioral evidence as well as evidence from ERP, fMRI, TMS and single cell recording consistent with stimulus-driven selection. Alternative viewpoints that assume a large role for top-down processing are discussed. It is argued that in most cases evidence supporting top-down control on visual selection in fact demonstrates top-down control on processes occurring later in time, following initial selection. We conclude that top-down knowledge regarding non-spatial features of the objects cannot alter the initial selection priority. Only by adjusting the size of the attentional window, the initial sweep of information through the brain may be altered in a top-down way.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Sensory Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6cc1c37ce6e246e6edb1b4c0c66b865039cda5df

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 Sensory Systems

Citations in the corpus

Predicting the Driver's Focus of Attention: The DR(eye)VE Project (2017, background): “cal literature, that identifies two distinct mechanisms guiding human eye fixations [63], computational models for FoA prediction branch into two families: top-down and bottom-up”
The Frontoparietal Attention Network of the Human Brain (2012, background): “Current literature on the cognitive mechanisms visual attention is dominated by the question of whether attention may select a stimulus solely on the basis of its perceptual characteristics or whether behavioral predispositions may overwrite stimulus-driven capture of attention (Simons 2000; Theeuwe”
Attentional Mechanisms of Distractor Suppression (2014, background): “1c) reflected the rapid disengagement of attention from objects that were dissimilar to the target (Godijn & Theeuwes, 2002; Theeuwes, 2010).”
Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi-Attribute Choice Experiments (2015, neutral): “As such eye-tracking research has provided insights into the control of visual attention (Awh et. al., 2006, Findlay, 2009, and Theeuwes, 2010).”
Value-driven attentional capture (2011, background): “Goal-directed and stimulus-driven modes of attentional control have long been a focus of intense investigation, and much has been learned about the operating principles of each mode of control and their interaction (1, 4).”
Executive Functions (2012, neutral): “Indeed, when monkeys are to point away from a stimulus, the neuronal population vector in primary motor cortex (coding the direction of planned movement) initially points toward the stimulus and only then shifts to the required direction (showing a prepotent tendency at the neuronal level to…”
Statistical Regularities Modulate Attentional Capture (2018, background): “It is assumed that initial selection is based on bottom-up factors such as salience (Theeuwes, 2010) or “acquired” salience through selection history (Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012), specifically when particular stimulus features acquire reward value (e.g., Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, 2011;…”
Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook (2012, background): “Hence, looking for a can of Coke will enhance processing of red areas in visual input by increasing the neuronal sensitivity for that particular color (Theeuwes, 2010; Treisman & Gelade, 1980; Van der Lans, Pieters, & Wedel, 2008).”
Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. (2013, background): “Top down and bottom up control of attention, occasionally referred to as endogenous and exogenous attention, are commonly defined as goal-driven, versus stimulus-driven, attention (for reviews see Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Theeuwes, 2010).”
Cortical Oscillatory Activity and Motor Control in Pediatric Stroke Patients With Hemidystonia (2025, unknown): “Inhibitory control is crucial to suppress inappropriate movements and execute correct responses (Dowsett and Livesey 2000; Theeuwes 2010), an aspect of movement that was predicted to be compromised in dystonia patients.”
Reorienting Spatial Attention within Visual Working Memory (2019, background): “Traditionally, exogenous attentional processes in perception were regarded as a merely bottom-up manner (Buschman & Miller, 2007; Chica et al., 2013; Connor et al., 2004; Dugué et al., 2018; Eimer et al., 2002; Hickey et al., 2010; Hopfinger & West, 2006; Theeuwes, 2010).”