First 2 or 3 words of Paper Title 19
Running head: What the heck is our title?
What the heck is our title?
Author
Author Affiliation
Abstract
The abstract (in block format) begins on the line following the Abstract heading. The abstract should not exceed 120 words. All numbers in the abstract (except those beginning a sentence) should be typed as digits rather than words. The abstract is a one-paragraph, self-contained summary of the most important elements of the paper. The abstract (in block format) begins on the line following the Abstract heading. The abstract should not exceed 120 words. All numbers in the abstract (except those beginning a sentence) should be typed as digits rather than words. The abstract is a one-paragraph, self-contained summary of the most important elements of the paper. This is an example of what 120 words looks like.
Title
INTRODUCTION
What are the recognition tasks that can be performed without attention? What are those that cannot?
Introduce our PNAS paper.
GENERAL METHOD
Participants
#? California Institute of Technology undergraduates and graduate students (from 20 to 26 years old) served as subjects in all or part of the experiments. Two authors of the paper (L.F-F, and R.V.) were among the subjects for some of the experiments. Each subject enrolled for at least 15 daily sessions of 1 hour and received payment. Subjects reported normal color vision and visual acuity (sometimes with corrective lenses), but underwent no tests in this respect. All subjects are right-handed. Other than the two authors, all subjects were naïve about the purpose of the experiments and highly motivated. 5 right-handed subjects, including the same two authors, were tested in the T/L discrimination control experiment. One other subject was discarded because he could not maintain his attentional focus on the central letter discrimination task under the dual task condition.
Apparatus
Database The pictures were complex color scenes taken from a large commercially available CD-ROM library allowing access to several thousand stimuli. The animal category images included pictures of mammals, birds, fish, insects, and reptiles. In a separate experiment (Fig. 3), an additional target category was used – vehicles. The vehicle category images included pictures of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, ships and hot-air balloons. There was also a very wide range of distractor images, which included natural landscapes, city scenes, pictures of food, fruits, plants, houses, and artificial objects.
Equipment Subjects were seated in a dark room especially designed for psychophysics experiments. The seat was approximately 120cm from a computer screen, connected to a Silicon Graphics (O2) computer. The refresh rate of the monitor was 75Hz.
Procedure
Central Letter Discrimination Task Each trial started with a fixation cross 300±100ms before the onset of the first stimulus. At 0ms, the central stimulus (a combination of five letters) was presented. The five letters (Ts and Ls, either all identical, or one differing from the other four), appeared at nine possible locations within 1.2° eccentricity. Each letter was randomly rotated. After the central SOA, each stimulus letter was masked by the letter ‘F’. For a given subject, SOA is the same for both single task and dual task condition. All trial types were presented with equal probability. Subjects were instructed to respond by pressing ‘S’ on the keyboard if the five letters were the same, or ‘D’ if one of the letters differed from the other four.
In a separate control experiment, we tested our subjects’ central performance with shortened SOAs. Subjects were instructed to perform the central letter discrimination task. For each subject, the central SOA alternated in four blocks of 48 trials between two values: the subject’s original SOA that was reached at the end of the training procedure, and another SOA 66ms shorter.
Figure ?. Experimental Setup
Peripheral Task In each peripheral task, the stimulus was always presented 53ms after the central stimulus onset. Subjects responded to these tasks in a speeded fashion. They were instructed to continuously hold down the mouse button and release it as fast as possible, within 1000ms, when they detected a target.
Experimental Paradigm Each experiment (main experiment and two control experiments) consisted of three different conditions: an attentionally demanding central task (identical in all experiments), a peripheral task (in which the role of attention was investigated), and a dual task condition in which both the central and peripheral task were performed concurrently. In each experiment, all trials were organised in the same way irrespective of the experimental condition (i.e. single task or dual task).
Training Procedure Each experiment required a significant training period. It usually took more than 10 hours for a subject to coordinate their motor responses well enough to answer both a speeded peripheral task and the central task. The central SOA (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, the time between the appearance of the central stimulus and the onset of the central mask), starting at 500ms, was decreased after each block where the performance of this task exceeded 85%. The procedure was terminated after the subject's performance had stabilized and the central SOA was below 250ms. This value was chosen to limit the possibility of switching attention during stimulus presentation. All tasks received the same amount of training.
EXPERIMENT 1:
Natural Scene Categorization w/o Attention Does Not Require Training
It usually takes 10-12 hours of training for subjects to stablize their dual task performance. Although the seemingly simpler peripheral tasks (e.g. color disks, rotated single letter) do not become easier with the same amount of training, we would still like to explore the effect of training (or lack of it).
Method
>Figure ?. X-training method & results
Results
Discussion
EXPERIMENT 2:
Evidence for Parallel Processing for Natural Scene Categorization w/o Attention
Method
>Figure ?. Double Image method
Results
>Figure ?. Double Image Results
Discussion
EXPERIMENT 3:
Natural Scene Categorization w/o Attention Can be Performed Without Color
Method
>Figure ?. Black and White Image
Results
Discussion
EXPERIMENT 4:
Multiple Copies of the Synthetic Stimuli Do Not Help Recognition w/o Attention
Method
>Figure ? Multiple Stimuli
Results
Discussion
EXPERIMENT 5:
Evidence for Well-learned Categories ob Objects Entailing Less
Attentional Load During Recognition
Method
>Figure ?. Fixed vs Rotated letters
Results
Discussion
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
Text citations. Source material must be documented in the body of the paper by citing the author(s) and date(s) of the sources. This is to give proper credit to the ideas and words of others. The reader can obtain the full source citation from the list of references that follows the body of the paper. When the names of the authors of a source are part of the formal structure of the sentence, the year of the publication appears in parenthesis following the identification of the authors, e.g., Eby (2001). When the authors of a source are not part of the formal structure of the sentence, both the authors and years of publication appear in parentheses, separated by semicolons, e.g. (Eby and Mitchell, 2001; Passerallo, Pearson, & Brock, 2000). When a source that has three, four, or five authors is cited, all authors are included the first time the source is cited. When that source is cited again, the first authors’ surname and “et al.” are used.
When a source that has two authors is cited, both authors are cited every time. If there are six or more authors to be cited, use the first authors’ surname and “et al.” the first and each subsequent time it is cited. When a direct quotation is used, always include the author, year, and page number as part of the citation. A quotation of fewer than 40 words should be enclosed in double quotation marks and should be incorporated into the formal structure of the sentence. A longer quote of 40 or more words should appear (without quotes) in block format with each line indented five spaces from the left margin.
The references section begins on a new page. The heading is centered on the first line below the manuscript page header. The references (with hanging indent) begin on the line following the references heading. Entries are organized alphabetically by surnames of first authors. Most reference entries have three components:
1. Authors: Authors are listed in the same order as specified in the source, using surnames and initials. Commas separate all authors. When there are seven or more authors, list the first six and then use “et al.” for remaining authors. If no author is identified, the title of the document begins the reference.
2. Year of Publication: In parenthesis following authors, with a period following the closing parenthesis. If no publication date is identified, use “n.d.” in parenthesis following the authors.
3. Source Reference: Includes title, journal, volume, pages (for journal article) or title, city of publication, publisher (for book).
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCE
1. Braun, J. & Julesz, B. (1998) Perc. & Psych. 60(1), 1-23.
2. Treisman, A. & Gelade, G. (1980) Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97-136.
3. Braun, J. (1994) J. Neurosci. 14, 554-567.
4. Bergen, J. R. & Julesz, B. (1983) Nature 303(5919), 696-698.
5. Malik, J. & Perona, P. J. (1990) Opt. Soc. Am. A. 7(5), 923-932.
6. Logothetis, N. K. & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 577-621.
7. Keysers, C., Xiao, D. K., Foldiak, P. & Perrett, D. I. (2001) J. Cognitive Neurosci. 13(1), 90-101.
8. Freedman, D. J., Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T. & Miller, E. K. (2001) Science 291(5502), 312-316.
9. Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K. & Clark, J. J. (1997) Psychol. Sci. 8(5), 368-373.
10. O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A. & Clark, J. J. (1999) Change-blindness as a results of ‘mudsplashes’. Nature 398(6722), 34.
11. Simons, D.J. & Levin, D.T. (1997) Trends Cog. Sci. 1: 261-267.
12. Mack A. & Rock, I. (1998) Inattentional Blindness. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
13. Potter M. C. & Levy, E. I. J. (1969) Exp. Psychol. 81(1), 10-15.
14. Subramaniam, S., Biederman, I. & Madigan, S. (2000) Vis. Cogn. 7(4), 511-535.
15. Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. (1996) Nature 381, 520-522.
16. Fabre-Thorpe, M., Delorme, A., Marlot C. & Thorpe, S. (2001) J. Cognitive Neurosci. 13(2), 171-180.
17. Delorme, A., Richard, G. & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2000) Vision Res. 40(16), 2187-2200.
18. VanRullen, R. & Thorpe, S.J. (2001) J. Cognitive Neurosci. 13(4), 454-461.
19. Thorpe, S., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Fabre-Thorpe, M. & Bulthoff, H. H. (2001) Eur J. Neurosci. 14(5), 869-876.
20. Lee, D.K, Koch, C. & Braun J. (1999) Perc. & Psych. 61(7), 1241-1255.
21. Sperling G. & Dosher, B. (1986) In Handbook of perception and human performance, eds, Boff, K R., Kaufman, L. & Thomas, J P. (Wiley, New York) pp1-65.
22. Braun, J. (1998) Nature 393: 424-245.
23. Joseph, J. S. Chun, M.M. & Nakayama, K. (1998) Nature 393: 424-245.
24. Rousselet, G. Fabre-Thorpe, M & Thorpe, S. (in press) Nature Neuroscience.
25. Pashler, H. (1998) The Psychology of Attention. (MIT Press).
26. Gottsdanker, R. (1980) In Tutorials in Motor Behavior, eds. Stelmach, G.E. & Requin, J. (North-Holland Press, Amsterdam) pp355-371.
27. Welford, A.T. (1952) Brit. J. Psychol. 43, 2-19.
28. Pashler, H. (1984) J. Exp. Psychol. Human 10, 358-377.
29. Heuer, H. (1985) J. Motor Behav. 17, 335-354.
30. Netick, A. & Klapp, S.T. (1994) J. Exp. Psychol. Human 20, 766-782.
31. Telford, C.W. (1931) J. Exp. Psychol. 14, 1-36.
32. Vince, M. (1949) Brit. J. Psychol. 40, 23-40.
33. Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S. & Shimojo, S. (1992) Vision Res. 33, 1219-1240.
34. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980) J. Exp. Psychol. General 109, 160-174.
35. Kingstone, A. (1992) Q. J. Exp. Psychol 44, 69-104.
36. Proverbio, A.M., & Mangun, G. R. (1994) Int. J. Neurosci. 79(3-4), 221-233.
37. Biederman, I. (1972) Science 177, 77-80.
38. Wolfe, J. M. (1998) Visual Memory: Curr. Bio. 8(9), R303-R304.
39. Heinze, H. J. et al. (1994) Nature 372(6506), 543-546.
40. Luck, S. J., Chelazzi, L., Hillyard, S. A., & Desimone, R. (1997) J. Neurophysiol. 77(1), 24-42.
41. Allison, T., Puce, A., Spencer, D. D. & McCarthy, G. (1999) Cereb. Cortex 9(5), 415-430.
42. Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E. & D'Esposito, M. (1998) Neuron 21(2), 373-383.
43. Epstein, R. & Kanwisher, N. (1998) Nature 392(6676), 598-601.
44. Chao, L. L., Martin, A. & Haxby, J. V. (1999) Nat. Neurosci. 2(10), 913-919.
45. Kreiman, G., Koch, C. & Fried, I. (2000) Nat. Neurosci. 3(9), 946-953.
46. Olshausen, B. A. & Field, D. J. (1996) Network-Comp. Neural 7(2), 333-339.
47. Vinje, W. E. & Gallant, J. L. (2000) Science 287(5456), 1273-1276.
Figure ? Experimental Setup
Figure ?. X-training method & results
Figure ?. Double Image method
Figure ?. Double Image Results
Figure ?. Black and White Image
Figure ? Multiple Stimuli
Figure ?. Fixed vs Rotated letters