scholarly journals Information processing architectures across the visual field: an EEG study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 316a
Author(s):  
Gaojie Fan ◽  
Gamble Heather ◽  
Robin Thomas
MRS Bulletin ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armand R. Tanguay

Over the past four decades, the growth of information processing and computational capacity has been truly remarkable, paced to a large extent by equally remarkable progress in the integration and ultra-miniaturization of semiconductor devices. And yet it is becoming increasingly apparent that currently envisioned electronic processors and computers are rapidly approaching technological barriers that delimit processing speed, computational sophistication, and throughput per unit dissipated power. This realization has in turn led to intensive efforts to circumvent such bottlenecks through appropriate advances in processor architecture, multiprocessor distributed tasking, and software-defined algorithms.An alternative strategy that may yield significant computational enhancements for certain broad classes of problems involves the utilization of multidimensional optical components capable of modulating and/or redirecting information-carrying light wave-fronts. Such an optical processing or computing approach relies for its competitive advantage principally on massive parallelism in conjunction with relative ease of implementation of complex (weighted) interconnections among many (perhaps simple) processing elements. A wide range of computational problems exist that lend themselves quite naturally to optical processing architectures, including pattern recognition, earth resources data acquisition and analysis, texture discrimination, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image formation, radar ambiguity function generation, spread spectrum identification and analysis, systolic array processing, phased array beam steering, and artificial (robotic) vision.


2002 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinji Kitagami ◽  
Tomoyoshi Inoue ◽  
Yukiko Nishizaki

The main purpose was to investigate how we process pictograms and to examine the effects of learning on visual field differences when participants overlearn the meaning of each pictogram. 15 students were required to judge whether the referent of each symbol was either larger or smaller than the referent of the standard stimulus (Test 1). Several days later the same task was conducted (Test 2). Although a right visual field advantage was observed in Test 1, it was not apparent at Test 2 after participants had studied the pictogram list repeatedly. These results suggest that pictograms might be processed in much the same way as other ordinary verbal stimuli at a very early stage of learning. Participants could, however, comprehend the pictograms by employing a kind of imagery processing after they were familiar with the symbols.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-151
Author(s):  
Lukas Engelmann ◽  
Caroline Humphrey ◽  
Christos Lynteris

Philip Steadman’s epilogue suggests that the copying of drawings (and its study) by anthropologists, psychologists, architectural students, and Surrealists is revealing not only of processes of diagrammatization but also of the fact that there is something ‘diagrammatic’ about the way in which designs are represented mentally, which affects how they are seen and altered when they are reproduced. The work of diagrams, not only as visual objects but also as mental processes, is shown by the articles in this special issue to play a central role in fields as diverse as psychoanalysis, anthropology, epidemiology, and biology. More often than not, the synergy between these fields is facilitated, and sometimes catalyzed, by shared diagrammatic practices. As the studies examined in the epilogue demonstrate, diagrams form a privileged visual field of interdisciplinary dialogue and exchange. But importantly, they also facilitate a way of information processing—what the editors of this special issue call ‘diagrammatic reasoning’—through which data are processed, presented, and reconfigured in clear and easily assimilated forms.


1986 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 1159-1179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin

Aspects of Silverman's subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) method are critically evaluated and SPA results are discussed within the context of information processing. Silverman's method has questionable features that involve visual-field position of the stimulus and structural matching of experimental and control stimuli. It lacks the converging operations required to support his contention that successful SPA experimental outcomes are due to differences in the contents of experimental and control stimuli. Evidence is offered to support the 1984 contention of Bornstein and Masling that SPA research has several unanswered questions about how consciously non-perceived stimuli are encoded and how such information can influence subsequent behavior. Extensive procedural changes for further SPA research are offered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document