[Brain Technology] ORIENTING OF ATTENTION

Bartlett viewed thinking as a high level skill exhibiting ballistic
properties that he called its "point of no return". This paper { not
linked here because it might cause brain damage to some } explores one
aspect of cognition through the use of a simple model task in which
human subjects are asked to commit attention to a position in visual
space other than fixation. This instruction is executed by orienting a
covert (attentional) mechanism that seems sufficiently time locked to
external events that its trajectory can be traced across the visual
field in terms of momentary changes in the efficiency of detecting
stimuli. A comparison of results obtained with alert monkeys, brain
injured and normal human subjects shows the relationship of this covert
system to saccadic eye movements and to various brain systems
controlling perception and motion. In accordance with Bartlett’s
insight, the possibility is explored that similar principles apply to
orienting of attention toward sensory input and orienting to the
semantic structures used in thinking.

--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote on 3/25/2020 4:00 PM:
Bartlett viewed thinking as a high level skill exhibiting ballistic
properties that he called its "point of no return". This paper { not
linked here because it might cause brain damage to some } explores one
aspect of cognition through the use of a simple model task in which
human subjects are asked to commit attention to a position in visual
space other than fixation. This instruction is executed by orienting a
covert (attentional) mechanism that seems sufficiently time locked to
external events that its trajectory can be traced across the visual
field in terms of momentary changes in the efficiency of detecting
stimuli. A comparison of results obtained with alert monkeys, brain
injured and normal human subjects shows the relationship of this covert
system to saccadic eye movements and to various brain systems
controlling perception and motion. In accordance with Bartlett’s
insight, the possibility is explored that similar principles apply to
orienting of attention toward sensory input and orienting to the
semantic structures used in thinking.

Which Bartlett? Is it Frederic Bartlett who wrote "Remembering" and
"Thinking" that provided Piaget inspiration in the development of his
theory on how children acquire motor skills? Or was it some Johnny come
lately with the same last name? Horrible job of reporting what might be
interesting insights: no citation and no definition of terms whose usage
seems to wildly conflict with both technical and scientific jargon.

These things must be easier on the ocular trajectories with yellow
backgrounds and Window 10.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 25/03/2020 23:15, Jeff Barnett wrote:
😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote on 3/25/2020 4:00 PM:
Bartlett viewed thinking as a high level skill exhibiting ballistic
properties that he called its "point of no return". This paper { not
linked here because it might cause brain damage to some } explores
one aspect of cognition through the use of a simple model task in
which human subjects are asked to commit attention to a position in
visual space other than fixation. This instruction is executed by
orienting a covert (attentional) mechanism that seems sufficiently
time locked to external events that its trajectory can be traced
across the visual field in terms of momentary changes in the
efficiency of detecting stimuli. A comparison of results obtained
with alert monkeys, brain injured and normal human subjects shows the
relationship of this covert system to saccadic eye movements and to
various brain systems controlling perception and motion. In
accordance with Bartlett’s insight, the possibility is explored that
similar principles apply to orienting of attention toward sensory
input and orienting to the semantic structures used in thinking.

Which Bartlett? Is it Frederic Bartlett who wrote "Remembering" and
"Thinking" that provided Piaget inspiration in the development of his
theory on how children acquire motor skills? Or was it some Johnny
come lately with the same last name? Horrible job of reporting what
might be interesting insights: no citation and no definition of terms
whose usage seems to wildly conflict with both technical and
scientific jargon.

These things must be easier on the ocular trajectories with yellow
backgrounds and Window 10.


Yep the same one.

Sir Frederic Bartlett wrote a book, Thinking, during the last part of
his life (Bartlett, 1958). It is not as widely known as his earlier
work, Remembering (Bartlett, 1932), but it had a strong impact on me,
perhaps because it was among the first psychology books I read.
Bartlett’s theme was as simple as it was powerful. Thinking is a skill
and should be studied with the techniques that had proved successful in
the study of other skilled behaviour. In particular, I was struck with
Bartlett’s metaphor that thinking like swinging a bat, has a "point of
no return". Once committed in a particular direction, thought is
ballistic in that it cannot be altered!!!!.



--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote on 3/25/2020 5:31 PM:
On 25/03/2020 23:15, Jeff Barnett wrote:
😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote on 3/25/2020 4:00 PM:
Bartlett viewed thinking as a high level skill exhibiting ballistic
properties that he called its "point of no return". This paper { not
linked here because it might cause brain damage to some } explores
one aspect of cognition through the use of a simple model task in
which human subjects are asked to commit attention to a position in
visual space other than fixation. This instruction is executed by
orienting a covert (attentional) mechanism that seems sufficiently
time locked to external events that its trajectory can be traced
across the visual field in terms of momentary changes in the
efficiency of detecting stimuli. A comparison of results obtained
with alert monkeys, brain injured and normal human subjects shows the
relationship of this covert system to saccadic eye movements and to
various brain systems controlling perception and motion. In
accordance with Bartlett’s insight, the possibility is explored that
similar principles apply to orienting of attention toward sensory
input and orienting to the semantic structures used in thinking.

Which Bartlett? Is it Frederic Bartlett who wrote "Remembering" and
"Thinking" that provided Piaget inspiration in the development of his
theory on how children acquire motor skills? Or was it some Johnny
come lately with the same last name? Horrible job of reporting what
might be interesting insights: no citation and no definition of terms
whose usage seems to wildly conflict with both technical and
scientific jargon.

These things must be easier on the ocular trajectories with yellow
backgrounds and Window 10.


Yep the same one.

Â*Sir Frederic Bartlett wrote a book, Thinking, during the last part of
his life (Bartlett, 1958). It is not as widely known as his earlier
work, Remembering (Bartlett, 1932), but it had a strong impact on me,
perhaps because it was among the first psychology books I read.
Bartlett’s theme was as simple as it was powerful. Thinking is a skill
and should be studied with the techniques that had proved successful in
the study of other skilled behaviour. In particular, I was struck with
Bartlett’s metaphor that thinking like swinging a bat, has a "point of
no return". Once committed in a particular direction, thought is
ballistic in that it cannot be altered!!!!.

"Remembering" was a very influential book both on early Physiologist and
later on parts of the strong AI community. "Thinking" was an extension
to the theory in the earlier book but didn't have the same impact for
several reasons: 1) the experimental method used in the former didn't
apply, i.e., examining memory by how mistakes were made, and 2) he had a
great idea that schemes/paradigms not only explained memory but more
creative sorts of mental activities. Unfortunately, his explanations and
reasoning meandered all over the place so it was never quite clear what
one was agreeing or disagreeing with. However, the raw insights were
powerful and credible. At least to me.
--
Jeff Barnett