Evidence for split attentional foci

A partial report procedure was used to test the ability of observers to split attention over noncontiguous locations. Observers reported the identity of 2 targets that appeared within a 5 x 5 stimulus array, and cues (validity = 80%) informed them of the 2 most likely target locations. On invalid trials, 1 of the targets appeared directly in between the cued locations. Experiments 1, 1a, and 2 showed a strong accuracy advantage at cued locations compared with intervening ones. This effect was larger when the cues were arranged horizontally rather than vertically. Experiment 3 suggests that this effect of cue orientation reflects an advantage for processing targets that appear in different hemifields. Experiments 4 and 4a suggest that the primary mechanism supporting the flexible deployment of spatial attention is the suppression of interference from stimuli at unattended locations.     

Head-centred meridian effect on auditory spatial attention orienting

Six experiments examined the issue of whether one single system or separate systems underlie visual and auditory orienting of spatial attention. When auditory targets were used, reaction times were slower on trials in which cued and target locations were at opposite sides of the vertical head-centred meridian than on trials in which cued and target locations were at opposite sides of the vertical visual meridian or were not separated by any meridian. The head-centred meridian effect for auditory stimuli was apparent when targets were cued by either visual (Experiments 2, 3, and 6) or auditory cues (Experiment 5). Also, the head-centred meridian effect was found when targets were delivered either through headphones (Experiments 2, 3, and 5) or external loudspeakers (Experiment 6). Conversely, participants showed a visual meridian effect when they were required to respond to visual targets (Experiment 4). These results strongly suggest that auditory and visual spatial attention systems are indeed separate, as far as endogenous orienting is concerned.     

Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention

Attentional selection depends on the interaction between exogenous (stimulus-driven), endogenous (goal-driven), and selection history (experience-driven) factors. While endogenous and exogenous biases have been widely investigated, less is known about their interplay with value-driven attention. The present study investigated the interaction between reward-history and goal-driven biases on perceptual sensitivity (d’) and response time (RT) in a modified cueing paradigm presenting two coloured cues, followed by sinusoidal gratings. Participants responded to the orientation of one of these gratings. In Experiment 1, one cue signalled reward availability but was otherwise task irrelevant. In Experiment 2, the same cue signalled reward, and indicated the target’s most likely location at the opposite side of the display. This design introduced a conflict between reward-driven biases attracting attention and goal-driven biases directing it away. Attentional effects were examined comparing trials in which cue and target appeared at the same versus opposite locations. Two interstimulus interval (ISI) levels were used to probe the time course of attentional effects. Experiment 1 showed performance benefits at the location of the reward-signalling cue and costs at the opposite for both ISIs, indicating value-driven capture. Experiment 2 showed performance benefits only for the long ISI when the target was at the opposite to the reward-associated cue. At the short ISI, only performance costs were observed. These results reveal the time course of these biases, indicating that reward-driven effects influence attention early but can be overcome later by goal-driven control. This suggests that reward-driven biases are integrated as attentional priorities, just as exogenous and endogenous factors.     

How do biases in spatial memory change as children and adults are learning locations?

This investigation tracked changes in categorical bias (i.e., placing objects belonging to the same spatial group closer together than they really are) while 7-, 9-, and 11-year-olds and adults were learning a set of locations. Participants learned the locations of 20 objects marked by dots on the floor of an open square box divided into quadrants. At test, participants attempted to place the objects in the correct locations without the dots and boundaries. In Experiment 1, we probed categorical bias during learning by alternating learning and test trials. Categorical bias was high during the first test trial and decreased over the second and third test trials. In Experiment 2, we manipulated opportunities for learning by providing participants with either one, two, three, or four learning trials prior to test. Participants who experienced one or two learning trials exhibited more bias at test than did those who experienced four learning trials. The discussion focuses on how categorical bias emerges through interactions between the cognitive system and task structure.     

The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of automatic visual attention.

Previously, we showed that the visual bias of auditory sound location, or ventriloquism, does not depend on the direction of deliberate, or endogenous, attention (Bertelson, Vroomen, de Gelder, & Driver, 2000). In the present study, a similar question concerning automatic, or exogenous, attention was examined. The experimental manipulation was based on the fact that exogenous visual attention can be attracted toward a singleton--that is, an item different on some dimension from all other items presented simultaneously. A display was used that consisted of a row of four bright squares with one square, in either the left- or the rightmost position, smaller than the others, serving as the singleton. In Experiment 1, subjects made dichotomous left-right judgments concerning sound bursts, whose successive locations were controlled by a psychophysical staircase procedure and which were presented in synchrony with a display with the singleton either left or right. Results showed that the apparent location of the sound was attracted not toward the singleton, but instead toward the big squares at the opposite end of the display. Experiment 2 was run to check that the singleton effectively attracted exogenous attention. The task was to discriminate target letters presented either on the singleton or on the opposite big square. Performance deteriorated when the target was on the big square opposite the singleton, in comparison with control trials with no singleton, thus showing that the singleton attracted attention away from the target location. In Experiment 3, localization and discrimination trials were mixed randomly so as to control for potential differences in subjects' strategies in the two preceding experiments. Results were as before, showing that the singleton attracted attention, whereas sound localization was shifted away from the singleton. Ventriloquism can thus be dissociated from exogenous visual attention and appears to reflect sensory interactions with little role for the direction of visual spatial attention.     

Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task

Response set membership contributes much to the interference in the color-word Stroop task. This may be due to selective allocation of attention to eligible responses or, alternatively, to greater inhibition of distractors that are not responses. In the present article, we report two experiments that were designed to adjudicate between these accounts. In Experiment 1, membership was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis by cuing the possible responses for each trial. Response time (RT) was longer for distractors that corresponded to a cued, eligible response than to an ineligible one. This cuing effect was independent of the number of different responses. In Experiment 2, the distractor was cued on half the trials. Cuing the distractor decreased RTs on both incongruent and congruent trials. Vincentile analyses in both experiments revealed that the effects were constant throughout the entire RT distributions. These results suggest that response set effects arise because of selective allocation of attention to eligible responses.     

A central-peripheral asymmetry in masked priming

Masked primes presented prior to a target result in behavioral benefits on incompatible trials (in which the prime and the target are mapped onto opposite responses) when they appear at fixation, but in behavioral benefits on compatible trials (in which the prime and the target are mapped onto the same response) when appearing peripherally. In Experiment 1, the time course of this central-peripheral asymmetry (CPA) was investigated. For central primes, compatible-trial benefits at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) turned into incompatible-trial benefits at longer SOAs. For peripheral primes, compatible-trial benefits at short SOAs increased in size with longer SOAs. Experiment 2 showed that these effects also occur when primes and targets are physically dissimilar, ruling out an interpretation in terms of the perceptual properties of the stimulus material. In Experiments 3 and 4, the question was investigated as to whether the CPA is related to visual-spatial attention and/or retinal eccentricity per se. The results indicate that the CPA is independent of attentional factors but strongly related to the physiological inhomogeneity of the retina. It is argued that central and peripheral primes trigger an initial motor activation, which is inhibited only if primes are presented at retinal locations of sufficiently high perceptual sensitivity. The results are discussed in terms of an activation threshold model.     

Splitting attention across the two visual fields in visual short-term memory

Humans have the ability to attentionally select the most relevant visual information from their extrapersonal world and to retain it in a temporary buffer, known as visual short-term memory (VSTM). Research suggests that at least two non-contiguous items can be selected simultaneously when they are distributed across the two visual hemifields. In two experiments, we show that attention can also be split between the left and right sides of internal representations held in VSTM. Participants were asked to remember several colors, while cues presented during the delay instructed them to orient their attention to a subset of memorized colors. Experiment 1 revealed that orienting attention to one or two colors strengthened equally participants' memory for those colors, but only when they were from separate hemifields. Experiment 2 showed that in the absence of attentional cues the distribution of the items in the visual field per se had no effect on memory. These findings strongly suggest the existence of independent attentional resources in the two hemifields for selecting and/or consolidating information in VSTM.     

Covert visual orienting: Hemifield-activation can be mimicked by zoom lens and midlocation placement strategies

How is attention distributed over visual space when an observer expects a target to occur at one of several possible locations? Two experiments sought to understand the source of the conflict between studies leading to the notions of hemifield activation (Hughes and Zimba 1985) and attentional gradients (Downing and Pinker 1985; Shulman et al. 1985, 1986). Subjects were cued to attend one of the 4 corners of an imaginary square centered at fixation, allowing comparison of uncued locations in the cued and uncued hemifields. In one experiment marking of the 4 locations was varied to determine if providing a ‘target’ for attention is necessary to obtain within-hemifield gradients. RT was faster at the cued location than at the three uncued locations which had equivalent latencies, a pattern that was unaffected by marking of the potential target locations. This result, which is consistent with the notion of a gradient around the attended location is a strong disconfirmation of the hemifield activation hypothesis. The second experiment demonstrated that an unusual procedure for presenting the probe stimuli in Hughes and Zimba (1985) is at least partially responsible for their evidence for uniform hemifield activation. It is proposed that visual attention is directed to visuo-spatial channels with fixed structural properties, and that when attention to two locations is desired, the subject may attend a spatial channel located between them.     

Differential effects of visual-spatial attention on response latency and temporal-order judgment

Summary Theorists from both classical structuralism and modern attention research have claimed that attention to a sensory stimulus enhances processing speed. However, they have used different operations to measure this effect, viz., temporal-order judgment (TOJ) and reaction-time (RT) measurement. We report two experiments that compared the effect of a spatial cue on RT and TOJ. Experiment 1 demonstrated that a nonmasked, peripheral cue (the brief brightening of a box) affected both RT and TOJ. However, the former effect was significantly larger than the latter. A masked cue had a smaller, but reliable, effect on TOJ. In Experiment 2, the effects of a masked cue on RT and TOJ were compared under identical stimulus conditions. While the cue had a strong effect on RT, it left TOJ unaffected. These results suggest that a spatial cue may have dissociable effects on response processes and the processes that lead to a conscious percept. Implications for the concept of direct parameter specification and for theories of visual attention are discussed.     

Effects of same-category and different-category extraneous memory sets on item recognition

In a study designed to distinguish between parallel and serial models of performance on Sternberg’s item recognition task, Krueger (1975) presented subjects with a memory set (the “added” set) followed by a second (“core”) set, a probe to the core set, and finally a probe to the added set. Response latency (RT) to both the core- and added-set probes initially increased with the size of the extraneous set. Over successive blocks of trials, the effect of the size of the extraneous set diminished. In Experiment 1 of the present study, Krueger’s basic procedures were replicated with results similar to those he reported for early trials. Experiment 2 was a variation on the added-set procedure. Rather than the memory sets’ being drawn from different categories (letters and digits), both sets consisted of digits. On half of the negative trials for both the core and the added tasks, the probe was drawn from the extraneous set, forcing the subjects to separate the two sets. Although RT on the core task did not increase with the size of the added set, there was an increase in RT to the added set with increases in core-set size, a finding inconsistent with the serial search model     

视听刺激突显性对视觉主导效应的影响

本研究使用空间任务-转换范式,控制视、听刺激的突显性,探讨自下而上注意对视觉主导效应的影响。结果表明视、听刺激突显性显著地影响视觉主导效应,实验一中当听觉刺激为高突显性时,视觉主导效应显著减弱。实验二中当听觉刺激为高突显性并且视觉刺激为低突显性时,视觉主导效应进一步减弱但依然存在。结果支持偏向竞争理论,在跨通道视听交互过程中视觉刺激更具突显性,在多感觉整合过程中更具加工优势。     

Attention control and the antisaccade task: a response time distribution analysis

In three experiments response time (RT) differences between correct prosaccade and antisaccade trials were examined via distribution analyses by fitting an ex-Gaussian function to individual RT distributions. Experiment 1 demonstrated that antisaccades are slower than prosaccades and this difference is due to both a shift in the overall distribution as well as a lengthening of the tail of the distribution. Experiment 2 demonstrated that manipulating foreperiod duration led to changes in both accuracy and RT for antisaccades but not prosaccades. Furthermore, the change in RT for antisaccades resulted in a lengthening in the tail of the distribution but not a shift in the distribution. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that with sufficient practice performance on antisaccades was equated with performance on prosaccades in terms of both accuracy and RT. An examination of the RT distributions suggested that practice led to parallel changes in both the mean of the distribution and the tail of the antisaccade distribution. These results are interpreted within a two-factor theory of attention control that suggests that performance on antisaccades is driven by both competition resolution and goal-maintenance abilities.     

Action relations, semantic relations, and familiarity of spatial position in Balint’s syndrome: Crossover effects on perceptual report and on localization

We contrasted effects of the action relationship between objects, relative to effects of semantic relation and familiarity of spatial location, in a patient with Balint’s syndrome. We found enhanced perceptual report of objects placed in the correct colocations for action in comparison with when the objects (1) were placed in incorrect locations for action (Experiment 1), (2) were associatively related (Experiment 2), or (3) fell in familiar locations but were not action related (Experiment 4). In contrast, the ability to localize the objects was affected by whether the objects were in familiar as opposed to unfamiliar locations with respect to one another. Action relations between objects facilitate joint attention to both objects but do not facilitate binding to location. Familiar spatial relations facilitate spatial binding, but do not cue joint attention to the stimuli. Effects of action relation on attention and localization can be dissociated from effects of semantic relationship and familiarity of spatial location on attention and localization.     

Display size effects in visual search: Analyses of reaction time distributions as mixtures

In a reanalysis of data from Cousineau and Shiffrin (2004) and two new visual search experiments, we used a likelihood ratio test to examine the full distributions of reaction time (RT) for evidence that the display size effect is a mixture-type effect that occurs on only a proportion of trials, leaving RT in the remaining trials unaffected, as is predicted by serial self-terminating search models. Experiment 1 was a reanalysis of Cousineau and Shiffrin's data, for which a mixture effect had previously been established by a bimodal distribution of RTs, and the results confirmed that the likelihood ratio test could also detect this mixture. Experiment 2 applied the likelihood ratio test within a more standard visual search task with a relatively easy target/distractor discrimination, and Experiment 3 applied it within a target identification search task within the same types of stimuli. Neither of these experiments provided any evidence for the mixture-type display size effect predicted by serial self-terminating search models. Overall, these results suggest that serial self-terminating search models may generally be applicable only with relatively difficult target/distractor discriminations, and then only for some participants. In addition, they further illustrate the utility of analysing full RT distributions in addition to mean RT.     

Grasping remaps the distribution of visuospatial attention and enhances competing action activation

We examined how action goals influence the distribution of visuospatial attention near the body (Experiment 1) and how the temporal relationship between distractors and targets modifies shifts in visuospatial attention (Experiment 2). Targets were light emitting diodes (LEDs) in the left and right hemispace of a visual display. Following left or right target illumination, participants reached to point-to or grasp target object in blocked trials. Coincident with target onset, a distractor LED illuminated in the same or opposite hemispace between the initiation point and target, or no distractor appeared. In Experiment 1, during grasping there was a larger temporal interference effect (slower reach initiation) than with pointing. When grasping versus pointing, participants deviated more towards same-side distractors and away from opposite-side distractors. In Experiment 2, distractors onset 200ms prior to (?200-ms), coincident with (0 ms), or 200ms following (+200 ms) the target. For both reach types, ?200-ms distractors had greater onset temporal interference than 0 ms and +200-ms distractors. For grasping, +200 ms distractors had larger temporal interference than 0 ms distractors. For ?200-ms, reach trajectories deviated more towards opposite-side distractors and away from same-side distractors, the reverse of the pattern for 0 ms and +200-ms distractors.     

On the Nature of the Probe Reaction-Time Task to Uncover the Attentional Demands of Movement

McLeod (1980) reported some findings which showed that no phase of a movement was more attention-demanding than the other phases, contrary to all the results previously reported (e.g., Ells, 1973; Glencross, 1980). However, McLeod used a paradigm in which the two tasks were serial. Each task consisted of a series of 50 reaction time (RT) trials and/or 50 aiming movement trials. In addition to this, the interval of time between a response and the following signal within each series was constant. In order to try to replicate McLeod’s findings, two experiments were conducted in which the response-signal interval was manipulated. The hypothesis was that time certainty associated with a constant interval would facilitate the allocation of time and would thus artificially reduce the interference between tasks. In Experiment I, manual responses were used for the RT task; in Experiment II, they were vocal. Manipulation of the response-signal interval does not change one of the conclusions reached by McLeod: when the RT task involves vocal responses and the results on the RT task are analyzed in terms of response rather than stimulus arrival during the movement, then there is no phase of the movement which is more attention-demanding than the other phases. However, the results of Experiment II in which both the vocal RT task and the movement task significantly deteriorated in the dual-task condition were taken as an indication that the movement studied involved central attentional demands.     

Out with the old, in with the new: More valid measures of switch cost and retrieval time in the task span procedure

Two experiments provided new measures of switch cost and retrieval time in the task span procedure. In Experiment 1, subjects were given lists of six task names to remember, followed by six targets on which to perform the tasks named in the list. The lists contained alternations and repetitions, and switch costs were estimated by comparing reaction time (RT) on alternation and repetition trials. The experiment also included memory span and single task conditions, so switch costs could be estimated by subtracting the sum of the RT in those conditions from the task span RT, as in the original report (Logan, 2004). The data suggested that the original measure of switch cost was invalid and that the new measure was preferable. In Experiment 2, subjects performed each task on the list twice. Retrieval was required on the first but not on the second trial in each pair. Retrieval time was estimated by comparing the RT on trials that required retrieval with trials that did not require retrieval. This measure was more valid than the RT in the memory span condition of Experiment 1, which was used in the original report.     

On the nature of the probe reaction-time task to uncover the attentional demands of movement

McLeod (1980) reported some findings which showed that no phase of a movement was more attention-demanding than the other phases, contrary to all the results previously reported (e.g., Ells, 1973; Glencross, 1980). However, McLeod used a paradigm in which the two tasks were serial. Each task consisted of a series of 50 reaction time (RT) trials and/or 50 aiming movement trials. In addition to this, the interval of time between a response and the following signal within each series was constant. In order to try to replicated McLeod's findings, two experiments were conducted in which the response-signal interval was manipulated. The hypothesis was that time certainty associated with a constant interval would facilitate the allocation of time and would thus artificially reduce the interference between tasks. In Experiment 1, manual responses were used for the RT task; in Experiment II, they were vocal. Manipulation of the response-signal interval does not change one of the conclusions reached by McLeod: when the RT task involves vocal responses and the results on the RT task are analyzed in terms of response rather than stimulus arrival during the movement, then there is no phase of the movement which is more attention-demanding than the other phases. However, the results of Experiment II in which both the vocal RT task and the movement task significantly deteriorated in the dual-task condition were taken as an indication that the movement studied involved central attentional demands.     

预期对注意的影响受制于被预期主体是目标还是分心物

以往研究表明, 预期机制和注意机制都能促进感知行为, 但两者以何种方式共同作用于感知行为仍然存在争议, 特别是, 对于预期主体在其中的作用尚不清楚。本研究采用空间提示以及视觉搜索相结合的范式, 通过4个实验, 考察了当被试对目标进行预期以及对分心物进行预期时, 空间预期对空间注意效应的不同影响。结果显示：(1)当目标为预期主体时, 预期对注意效应具有调节作用; (2)当分心物为预期主体时, 预期与注意的作用独立; (3)当目标为预期主体时, 通过刺激数增加而导致的任务难度变化不影响预期和注意之间的关系。这表明, 空间预期是否影响空间注意效应受制于预期主体——当预期主体为目标时, 预期和注意两者交互式地影响感知行为; 当预期主体为分心物时, 预期和注意独立地影响感知行为; 而且, 预期和注意之间的关系不受任务难度影响。