Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations

The allocation of spatial attention was measured with detection probes at different locations. Response times were faster for probes at the location of the target digit, which subjects reported, than at the locations of distractor digits, which they ignored. Probes at blank locations between stimuli produced fast responses, indicating that selection was accomplished by inhibiting distractor locations but not other areas. Unlike earlier studies using location cuing with simpler stimuli, these experiments showed no attentional differences across horizontal or vertical midlines. Attention varied little with distance from the target, although blank locations far from the target were somewhat less attended than were those near the target, and attention was only slightly affected by expectations for stimulus location. This task demonstrates a form of feature-driven spatial attention, in which locations with objects lacking target features are inhibited.     

Objects but not concepts modulate the size of the attended region

Here we investigated the types of stimuli that modulate the size of the attentional spotlight. In particular, it has been previously shown that conceptual cues that either directly refer to or are semantically related to particular spatial locations can shift attention to that location (known as “conceptual cueing”). For example, reading the word sun or joy can shift attention upward whereas the word boot or hostile can shift attention downward. Here, therefore, we tested whether words could modulate the size of the attended area. Across five experiments, we found that words that either directly referred to, or were abstractly associated with, particular sizes (small versus large) did not change the size of the attentional spotlight, whereas the presence of differently sized stimuli did, as evidenced by faster responses to targets when the spotlight is small than when it is large. This suggests that physical but not conceptual inducers can modulate the size of the attentional spotlight. This highlights an important difference between the regulation of spotlight size and shifts of attention, supporting the notion that they are subserved by distinct mechanisms.     

The spatial distribution of attention during covert visual orienting

Many studies of covert orienting of visual attention in response to informative pre-cues have focused on the spatial distribution of improved or impaired performance. One can find at least four different models in the literature, each describing a different distribution: the fixed gradient spotlight; the zoom lens spotlight; the hemifield activation hypothesis; and the flexible allocation of resources model. In previous work examining procedural details that might have led to the formulation of the hemifield activation hypothesis, it was postulated (Klein and McCormick 1989) that under conditions of uncertainty about which of two locations to attend, an observer may focus attention on a visual channel (i.e., midlocation placement of a fixed gradient spotlight) that is spatially intermediate. The present experiment was designed to distinguish among the four models of attentional distribution, and to test the midlocation placement strategy. Our findings show support for midlocation placement, demonstrate evidence against flexible allocation and hemifield activation, but could not differentiate between fixed gradient and zoom lens variants of the spotlight model.     

Spotlight failure effect in exogenous orienting.

Many experimental results about spatial attention have been explained by assuming the existence of an attentional "spotlight" which can move from one location in visual space to another. Such an account has been recently challenged by findings which show the influence of nonspatial factors in spatial attention. In particular, the so-called "spotlight failure" effect refers to the influence of the probability of occurrence of different stimuli. However, such an effect has only been reported in the case of endogenous (or central) orientation, rather than on exogenous (or peripheral) orienting. We present evidence showing that the spotlight failure effect can be obtained with exogenous orienting, even at a short SOA (100 ms). Besides, experimental instructions can modulate the effect, which agrees with theoretical accounts proposing that top-down factors can influence attentional capture.     

Time-Course of Sensitivity Changes as Attention Shifts to an Unpredictable Location

Shifting visual attention is often described as analogous to a spotlight moving through empty space between locations. In the present experiment, a peripheral precue summoned attention to an initial location, and 200 ms later a second peripheral cue appeared beside one of two possible second locations, each 14° away from the initial location. The target was twice as likely to appear at the location that had been indicated by the immediately preceding cue as at the location that had been previously cued or that would be cued. Fine-grained temporal analyses indicated that, as attention was shifted, sensitivity to information at the second location gradually increased while sensitivity at the first location simultaneously decreased. Average sensitivity over the two locations during the shift remained significantly greater than average sensitivity immediately following the initial precue. In contrast, an attentional “spotlight” moving from the first to the second location would produce a decrease in average sensitivity to its initial level while the spotlight was between locations.     

Selective spatial enhancement: Attentional spotlight size impacts spatial but not temporal perception

An important but often neglected aspect of attention is how changes in the attentional spotlight size impact perception. The zoom-lens model predicts that a small (“focal”) attentional spotlight enhances all aspects of perception relative to a larger (“diffuse” spotlight). However, based on the physiological properties of the two major classes of visual cells (magnocellular and parvocellular neurons) we predicted trade-offs in spatial and temporal acuity as a function of spotlight size. Contrary to both of these accounts, however, across two experiments we found that attentional spotlight size affected spatial acuity, such that spatial acuity was enhanced for a focal relative to a diffuse spotlight, whereas the same modulations in spotlight size had no impact on temporal acuity. This likely reflects the function of attention: to induce the high spatial resolution of the fovea in periphery, where spatial resolution is poor but temporal resolution is good. It is adaptive, therefore, for the attentional spotlight to enhance spatial acuity, whereas enhancing temporal acuity does not confer the same benefit.     

Time-course of sensitivity changes as attention shifts to an unpredictable location.

Shifting visual attention is often described as analogous to a spotlight moving through empty space between locations. In the present experiment, a peripheral precue summoned attention to an initial location, and 200 ms later a second peripheral cue appeared beside one of two possible second locations, each 14 degrees away from the initial location. The target was twice as likely to appear at the location that had been indicated by the immediately preceding cue as at the location that had been previously cued or that would be cued. Fine-grained temporal analyses indicated that, as attention was shifted, sensitivity to information at the second location gradually increased while sensitivity at the first location simultaneously decreased. Average sensitivity over the two locations during the shift remained significantly greater than average sensitivity immediately following the initial precue. In contrast, an attentional "spotlight" moving from the first to the second location would produce a decrease in average sensitivity to its initial level while the spotlight was between locations.     

Spatial frequency and attention: Effects of level-, target-, and location-repetition on the processing of global and local forms

Is attentional selection between local and global forms based on spatial frequency? This question was examined by having subjects identify local or global forms of stimuli that had been “contrast balanced,” a technique that eliminates low spatial frequencies. Response times (RTs) to global (but not local) forms were slowed for contrast-balanced stimuli, suggesting that low spatial frequencies mediate the global RT advantage typically reported. In contrast, the beneficial effect of having targets appear at the same, as opposed to a different, level as that on the immediately preceding trial was unaffected by contrast balancing. This suggests that attentional selection between different levels of structure is not based on spatial frequency. The data favor an explanation in terms of “priming,” rather than in terms of adjustments in the diameter of an attentional “spotlight.”     

Immunity to attentional capture at ignored locations

Certain stimuli have the power to rapidly and involuntarily capture spatial attention against our will. The present study investigated whether such stimuli capture spatial attention even when they appear in ignored regions of visual space. In other words, which force is more powerful: attentional capture or spatial filtering? Participants performed a spatial cuing task, searching for a letter target defined by color (e.g., green) and then reporting that letter’s identity. Two of the four search locations were always irrelevant. Unlike many previous experiments, participants were forced to ignore these locations because they always contained a target-colored distractor letter. Experiment 1 assessed capture by a salient-but-irrelevant abrupt onset cue appearing 150 ms before the search display. One might expect onset cues to capture attention even at ignored locations given that the main function of capture, presumably, is to rapidly alert observers to unexpected yet potentially important stimuli. However, they did not. Experiment 2 replicated this result with a different neutral baseline condition. Experiment 3 replicated the absence of capture effects at ignored locations with an even more potent stimulus: a relevant cue possessing the target color. We propose that people are effectively immune to attentional capture by objects in ignored locations – spatial filtering dominates attentional capture.     

Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return

It has been demonstrated that the human visual field shows some functional inhomogeneities, in particular when the central and perifoveal regions are compared to the more peripheral regions. The present study examined this inhomogeneity by examining the effect of stimulus eccentricity on inhibition of return (IOR), a phenomenon that biases our attention towards novel locations against returning it back to previously attended locations. Eighteen subjects were examined in a visual detection task, in which a target appeared randomly following a nonpredictive spatial cue in the visual field. The eccentricities of the cues and targets were systematically manipulated from 5° to 30° with 5° increments. Results showed that response times to targets that appeared at cued locations were significantly slower than those at uncued locations for all stimulus eccentricities, demonstrating the IOR effects. However, response times at cued locations increased significantly when stimulus eccentricity shifted from 15° to 20°, leading to a much stronger IOR effect at more peripheral regions compared to central and perifoveal regions, indicating a functional dissociation between these two regions of the visual field. Possible neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation are discussed, and two attention systems modulating the two functional regions of the visual field are put forward to best account the present finding implicating in particular midbrain mechanism.     

Distance is relative: Inattentional blindness critically depends on the breadth of the attentional focus

Inattentional blindness – the phenomenon that we sometimes miss salient stimuli in our direct view when they appear unexpectedly and attention is focused on something else - is modulated by various parameters, including distance of the unexpected stimulus from the attentional focus. In two experiments, we expanded the existing literature on spatial factors influencing inattentional blindness as well as theories on the spatial distribution of attention. Noticing rates of unexpected objects were significantly higher when they appeared outside instead of inside the bounds of primary task stimuli. Thus, our results do neither support the account that spatial attention is tuned as a spotlight that includes relevant targets and everything in between nor an account of purely object-based attentional orientation. Instead, the results speak in favor of an inhibitory area between two attended targets. Experiment 2 replicated these surprising findings and additionally demonstrated that they were not confounded by task.     

Position-dependent and position-independent attention shifts: Evidence against the spotlight and premotor assumption of visual focussing

Summary One implication of the spotlight metaphor of visual-attention shifts is that attention moves from position to position, from one object in the visual field to another. According to this view, attention shifts start at the last-focussed position, their spatiotemporal course therefore being position dependent. A different, yet also position-dependent, formulation is implied in the so-called premotor hypothesis of attention (Rizzolatti et al., 1987; Umiltà et al., 1991). In this paper these two accounts are tested against an alternative, position-independent conception. It is maintained that in the case of onset-triggered processes, the course of the attentional shifts is independent of the last-focussed position.On the basis of these considerations, three experiments measure choice-reaction times of stimuli at different spatial positions after peripheral cuing of the same or another position within the visual field. Results show no evidence for the position-dependent conception of the spotlight metaphor or the premotor hypothesis with a long SOA (stimulus-onset asynchrony) between cue and stimulus. Only with a short SOA is the premotor hypothesis supported by the data. As an alternative interpretation, a position-independent thesis is favored, in which it is assumed that attention shifts can be adjusted during an early stage of processing.     

Your divided attention, please! The maintenance of multiple attentional control sets over distinct regions in space

When non-informative peripheral cues precede a target defined by a specific feature, cues that share the critical feature will capture attention while cues that do not will be effectively ignored. We tested whether different attentional control sets can be simultaneously maintained over distinct regions of space. Participants were instructed to respond only to specific colored targets at specific locations. Most trials included non-predictive cues whose location and/or color were either congruent or incongruent with the spatial and/or color properties of the impending target. We observed contingent capture only for cues that were consistent with the attentional control set applied to that region of space. This is the first demonstration that separate attentional control sets can be simultaneously maintained at distinct spatial locations, with implications for the flexibility of endogenous control over automatic attentional orienting.     

视网膜离心率影响空间注意梯度分布

采用同步判断(Simultaneous judgment, SJ)的研究范式探讨空间注意梯度是否受到视网膜离心率的影响。实验中给被试呈现两个目标刺激, 调节它们的呈现距离和间隔时间, 让被试进行不限时的同步判断, 计算出各种距离上的主观等同点(Point of Subjective Simultaneous, PSS)变化情况。实验中对比了注视点和注意点重合与分离的两种状态。其中注视点和注意点分离的状态是指使用反向掩蔽后的线索刺激将注意点内隐地引导到外周。通过控制似动等影响因素, 发现在注意点和注视点分离的状态下存在距离效应—— 也就是随着距离的增长主观等同点变化越大, 但是在重合的状态下则没有。结果表明分离状态下存在传统意义上的注意梯度效应, 而重合时, 注意易化梯度受到一个抑制梯度的影响。这说明, 注意梯度分布受到视网膜离心率的影响, 而影响方式符合注意点为中心的易化梯度场和注视点为中心的抑制梯度场的双梯度场理论。     

Selective attention and performance with a multidimensional visual display

Selective attention was studied in four experiments in which stimuli varied in both spatial location and visual form. In Experiment 1 the likely location and likely form of targets were both precued. An advantage was found for cued over uncued forms at both cued and uncued locations. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, different forms tended to occur at different locations. Regardless of whether a location was cued or uncued, form selective effects were found in accordance with form probability for that location. It was not the case that selective attention simply favored certain locations or certain stimulus forms in preference to others. Rather, selective attention was sensitive to precise combinations of form and location. These results could not be reconciled with mental spotlight notions of spatial selectivity.     

Spatial cuing in a stereoscopic display: Evidence for a “depth-aware” attentional focus

Two experiments were conducted to explore whether attentional selection occurs in depth, or whether attentional focus is “depth blind,” as suggested by Ghiradelli and Folk (1996). In Experiment 1, observers viewed stereoscopic displays in which one of four spatial locations was cued. Two of the locations were at a near-depth location and two were at a far-depth location, and a single target was presented along with three distractors. The results indicated a larger cost in reaction time for switching attention inx,y and depth than inx,y alone, supporting a “depth-aware” attentional spotlight. In Experiment 2, no distractors were present, similar to the displays used by Ghiradelli and Folk. In this experiment, no effect for switching attention in depth was found, indicating that the selectivity of attention in depth depends on the perceptual load imposed on observers by the tasks and displays.     

Evidence for split foci of attention in a priming paradigm

Most models of visuospatial attention include the notion that attention is dedicated to a single location in space. However, several researchers have found evidence that under appropriate circumstances, attention may be allocated to noncontiguous locations (e.g., Awh & Pashler, 2000; Bichot, Cave, & Pashler, 1999; Kramer & Hahn, 1995). In the present experiments, the spatial distribution of attention was assessed by a novel method, perceptual latency priming: the latency benefit of an attended visual stimulus, as compared with a nonattended stimulus. Experiment 1 assessed whether observers are able to attend to two nonadjacent regions or a region of variable size. Experiment 2 tested whether, when two distant locations are attended to, the region between them is necessarily also in the focus of attention. Two further experiments controlled for objections against the method used and replicated the main results of the first two experiments. The experiments showed a robust attentional priming effect at two noncontiguous locations of the visual field, simultaneous with little or no priming of the intervening location.     

Unconscious priming of task sets: The role of spatial attention

Unconscious stimuli activate task sets, mental programs that orchestrate performance of complex tasks, but the role of attention in such effects has not been addressed. In previous studies, unconscious prime stimuli appeared at attended locations and were explicitly specified in the task instructions; spatial attention to the prime and/or a specific conscious attentional set may thus be required for such unconscious activation to arise. In the present experiments, a learning phase established associations between unconscious prime stimuli and performance of two tasks. These associations influenced task performance in a subsequent test phase, even though the primes were not specified in current task instructions. This is the first demonstration that unconscious stimuli can prime task sets independently of a current attentional set that specifies stimulus-task mappings. Such priming was not influenced by spatial attention cues, in contrast to clear attention influences in comparison trials that mimicked conditions employed by previous studies.     

On the relationship between flanker interference and localized attentional interference

The flanker interference (FI) effect suggests that visual attention operates like a mental spotlight, enhancing all stimuli within a selected region. In contrast, other data suggest difficulty dividing attention between objects near one another in the visual field, an effect termed localized attentional interference (LAI). The present experiment examined the relationship between these phenomena. Observers made speeded identity judgments of a colored target letter embedded among gray fillers. A response-compatible or -incompatible flanker of a non-target color appeared at varying distances from the target. Data gave evidence of LAI and spatially-graded FI, with mean RTs and flanker effects both decreasing with target–flanker separation. Both effects were reduced when target location was pre-cued and when the target was of higher salience than the flanker. Results suggest that the distribution of spatial attention modulates the strength of objects competing for selection, with this competition underlying both the FI and LAI effects.     

Inhibitory tagging in an interrupted visual search

Inhibition of return facilitates visual search, biasing attention away from previously examined locations. Prior research has shown that, as a result of inhibitory tags associated with rejected distractor items, observers are slower to detect small probes presented at these tagged locations than they are to detect probes presented at locations that were unoccupied during visual search, but only when the search stimuli remain visible during the probe-detection task. Using an interrupted visual search task, in which search displays alternated with blank displays, we found that inhibitory tagging occurred in the absence of the search array when probes were presented during these blank displays. Furthermore, by manipulating participants’ attentional set, we showed that these inhibitory tags were associated only with items that the participants actively searched. Finally, by probing before the search was completed, we also showed that, early in search, processing at distractor locations was actually facilitated, and only as the search progressed did evidence for inhibitory tagging arise at those locations. These results suggest that the context of a visual search determines the presence or absence of inhibitory tagging, as well as demonstrating for the first time the temporal dynamics of location prioritization while search is ongoing.