Two Types of Visual Objects

1. Armstrong, D. M. 1978, Universals and Scientific Realism. Vol. I: Nominalism and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

2. Bahrami, B. 2003, “Object Property Encoding and Change Blindness in Multiple Object Tracking”, Visual Cognition 10, pp. 949–963.Search in Google Scholar

3. Carey, S., Xu, F. 2001, “Infants’ Knowledge of Objects: Beyond Object Files and Object Tracking”, Cognition 80(1–2), pp. 179–213.Search in Google Scholar

4. Clark, A. 2004, “Sensing, Objects, and Awareness: Reply to Commentators”, Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 563–589.Search in Google Scholar

5. van Cleve J. (1985), Three Versions of the Bundle Theory, Philosophical Studies, 47(1), 95–107.10.1007/BF00355089Search in Google Scholar

6. Cohen, J. 2004, “Objects, Places, and Perception”, Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 471–495.Search in Google Scholar

7. Denkel, A. 2000, “The Refutation of Substrata”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61(2), pp. 431–439.Search in Google Scholar

8. Elder, J. H., Goldberg, R. M. 2002, “Ecological Statistics of Gestalt Laws for the Perceptual Organization of Contours”, Journal of Vision 2(4), pp. 324–353.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hochberg, H. 1965, “Universals, Particulars, and Predication”, The Review of Metaphysics 19(1), pp. 87–102.Search in Google Scholar

10. Hoffman, D. D., Richards, W. A. 1984, “Parts of Recognition”, Cognition 18(1–3), pp. 65–96.Search in Google Scholar

11. Hubel, D., Wiesel, T. N. 1962, “Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction and Functional Architecture in the Cat’s Visual Cortex”, The Journal of Physiology 160, pp. 106–154.Search in Google Scholar

12. Hummel, J. E. (2013), Object Recognition, in D. Reisburg (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 32-46.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0003Search in Google Scholar

13. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A. M., Gibbs, B. J. 1992, “The Reviewing of Object Files: Object-Specific Integration of Information”, Cognitive Psychology 24(2), pp. 175–219.Search in Google Scholar

14. Keane, B. P. 2009, Visual Objects as the Referents of Early Vision: A Response to A Theory Of Sentience, in D. Dedrick, L. Trick (eds.), Computation, Cognition, and Pylyshyn, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 303–333.Search in Google Scholar

15. Keane, B. P, Pylyshy, Z. W. 2006, “Is Motion Extrapolation Employed in Multiple Object Tracking? Tracking as a Low-Level, Non-Predictive Function”, Cognitive Psychology 52(4), pp. 346–368.Search in Google Scholar

16. Kubovy, M, Holcombe, A. O., Wagemans, J. 1998, “On the Lawfulness of Grouping by Proximity”, Cognitive Psychology 35(1), pp. 71–98.Search in Google Scholar

17. Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D., Scholl, B. J. 1998, “Indexing and the Object Concept: Developing ‘What’ and ‘Where’ Systems”, Trends in Cognitive Science 2(1), pp. 10–18.Search in Google Scholar

18. Loux, M. J. 1978, Substance and Attribute. A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9874-2Search in Google Scholar

19. Lowe, J. E. 2000, “Lock, Martin, and Substance”, The Philosophical Quarterly 50(201), pp. 499–514.Search in Google Scholar

20. van Marle, K., Scholl, B. J. 2003, “Attentive Tracking of Objects vs. Substances”, Psychological Science 14, pp. 498–504.Search in Google Scholar

21. Marr, D. 2010, Vision. A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262514620.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

22. Martin C. B. (1980), “Substance Substantiated”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58(1), pp. 3-10.10.1080/00048408012341001Search in Google Scholar

23. Matthen, M. P. 2004, “Features, Places, and Things: Reflections on Austen Clarks’s Theory of Sentience”, Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 497–518.Search in Google Scholar

24. Mitroff, S.R., Scholl, B.J. Wynn, K. 2004, “Divide and Conquer: How Object Files Adapt When a Persisting Object Splits Into Two”, Psychological Science 15, pp. 420–425.Search in Google Scholar

25. Palmer, S. E. 1999, Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

26. Palmer, S., Rock, I. 1994, “Rethinking Perceptual Organization: The Role of Uniform Connectedness”, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1(1), pp. 29–55.Search in Google Scholar

27. Park, W. 1990, “Haecceitas and the Bare Particular”, The Review of Metaphysics 44(2), pp. 375–397.Search in Google Scholar

28. Pomerantz, J. R., Kubovy, M. 1986, Theoretical Approaches to Perceptual Organization. Simplicity and Likelihood Principles, in K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, J. P. Thomas (eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Wiley, New York, pp. 1–46.Search in Google Scholar

29. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1994, “Some Primitive Mechanisms of Spatial Attention”, Cognition 50, pp. 363–384.Search in Google Scholar

30. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2001, “Visual Indexes, Preconceptual Objects, and Situated Vision”, Cognition 80(1), pp. 127–158.Search in Google Scholar

31. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007, Things and Places. How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7475.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

32. Qiu, F. T., von der Heydt, R. 2005, “Figure and Ground in the Visual Cortex: V2 Combines Stereoscopic Cues with Gestalt Rules”, Neuron 47(1), pp. 155–166.10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.028156406915996555Search in Google Scholar

33. Rensink, R. A. 2000, “The Dynamic Representation of Scenes”, Visual Cognition 7(1/2/3), pp. 17–42.Search in Google Scholar

34. Russell, B. 2009, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203875353Search in Google Scholar

35. Schellenberg, S. 2011, “Perceptual Content Defended”, Nous 45(4), pp. 714–750.Search in Google Scholar

36. Scholl, B. J. 2001, “Objects and Attention: The State of Art”, Cognition 80(1), pp. 1–46.Search in Google Scholar

37. Scholl, B. J. 2007, “Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology”, Mind and Language 22(5), pp. 563–591.Search in Google Scholar

38. Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1999, “Tracking Multiple Items through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood”, Cognitive Psychology 38, pp. 259–290.Search in Google Scholar

39. Simons, P. 1994, “Particulars in Particular Clothing: Three Trope Theories of Substance”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54(3), pp. 553–575.Search in Google Scholar

40. Treisman, A. M. 1998, “Feature Binding, Attention and Object Perception”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 353(1373), pp. 1295–1306.Search in Google Scholar

41. Ullman, S. 1996, High-Level Vision. Object Recognition and High-Level Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3496.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

42. Viswanathan, L., Mingolla, E. 2002, “Dynamics of Attention in Depth: Evidence From Multi-Element Tracking”, Perception 31(12), pp. 1415–1437.Search in Google Scholar