Comment on Theeuwes’s Characterization of Visual Selection
Theeuwes (2018, this issue) argues that the classic dichotomy describing the factors that guide attention (bottom-up and top-down) is inadequate and should be replaced by a trichotomy (bottom-up, top-down, and selection history). In contrast, I argue that top-down is a broad category that comfortabl...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ubiquity Press
2018-05-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Cognition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.journalofcognition.org/articles/29 |
| Summary: | Theeuwes (2018, this issue) argues that the classic dichotomy describing the factors that guide attention (bottom-up and top-down) is inadequate and should be replaced by a trichotomy (bottom-up, top-down, and selection history). In contrast, I argue that top-down is a broad category that comfortably includes selection history. While one can certainly choose to subdivide broad categories, there is no obvious stopping point for such an endeavor; how long can it be before this trichotomy turns into a “quadchotomy”? |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2514-4820 |