Movement and visual attention: the spotlight metaphor breaks down

The interfering effects of distractor letters are known to diminish with increasing distance from the target letter (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). This result is held to support spotlight models in which visual attention can only be assigned to contiguous regions of the visual field. However, the result is also consistent with the rival claim that attention is assigned to perceptual groups. Four experiments show that grouping of target and distractors by common motion can have more influence than their proximity. Distant distractor letters that move with a target letter produce more interference than static distractors that are nearer the target. Near distractors are equally ineffective if the target is static while they move. These results imply that attention is directed to perceptual groups whose components may be spatially dispersed. The spotlight metaphor seems inappropriate for visual attention in a dynamic environment.     

Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control

A time-course analysis of visual attention focusing (attentional constraint) was conducted in groups of participants with high and low working memory spans, a dimension the authors have argued reflects the ability to control attention. In 4 experiments, participants performed the Eriksen flanker paradigm under increasing levels of speed stress. Conditional accuracy functions were derived to measure the time course of attentional constraint. The data showed that accuracy rates rose toward asymptote at different rates, with participants with high working memory spans reaching peak performance before participants with low working memory spans. The authors interpret these data in terms of a rate of attention constraint model.     

Visuospatial attention: beyond a spotlight model

Much of the research in visual attention has been driven by the spotlight metaphor. This metaphor has been useful over many years for generating experimental questions in attention research. However, theories and models of visual selection have reached such a level of complexity that debate now centers around more specific questions about the nature of attention. In this review, the general question "Is visual attention like a spotlight?" is broken down into seven specific questions concerning the nature of visual attention, and the evidence relevant to each is examined. The answers to these specific questions provide important clues about why visual selection is necessary and what purpose attention plays in visual cognition.     

Spatial selectivity in visual search

To what extent does successful search for a target letter in a visual display depend on the allocation of attention to the target’s spatial position? To investigate this question, we required subjects to discriminate the orientation of a briefly flashed U-shaped form while searching for a target letter. Performance operating characteristics (POCs) were derived by varying the relative amounts of attention subjects were to devote to each task. Extensive tradeoffs in performance were observed when the orientation form and target letter occurred in nonadjacent display positions. In contrast, the tradeoff was much more restricted when the two targets occurred in adjacent positions. These results suggest that the interference between simultaneous visual discriminations depends critically on their separation in visual space. Both visual search and form discrimination require a common limited-capacity visual resource.     

Spatial attention and expectancy for colour, category and location: further evidence against the spotlight model.

A study of spatial attention is reported in which different colours and categories of object tended to appear at different locations. Subjects made speeded orientation judgements to alphanumeric characters that could appear either above or below the centre of a display. In the Colour Condition subjects were informed that red characters tended to appear at one location (p = 0.8), while green characters tended to appear at the other. In the Category Condition letters tended to appear at one location, and digits at the other. Before each trial subjects were cued to expect either a red or a green character (Colour Condition); or a letter or a digit (Category Condition). It was found that spatial selectivity varied according to the colour, or category of object presented. The latter finding replicated an earlier report (Lambert 1987). Spatial selectivity was appropriate for the character presented, even when it was in the uncued colour (or category). It is concluded that subjects are able to form and make use of complex attentional expectancies concerning combinations of colour with location, and category with location. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

Spatial factors in visual attention: a reply to Crassini

Distances between stimuli and, derivatively, compactness of stimulus subsets are pervasive determiners of discrimination and classification performance. Contrary to Crassini (1986), these factors are sufficient to account for the major patterns in the chronometric data of Podgorny and Shepard (1978, 1983). Other factors, such as the dichotomous one distinguishing what Crassini terms unitary and nonunitary subsets, may exert some additional influence. But a convincing demonstration would require formulation of a quantitative model capable of being pitted against the distance-based model of Podgorny and Shepard within the context of their entire body of data.     

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

Visual attention enables us to selectively prioritize or suppress information in the environment. Prominent models concerned with the control of visual attention differentiate between goal-directed, top-down and stimulus-driven, bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. In the current review, we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that attentional selection does not need to be the result of top-down or bottom-up processing but, instead, is often driven by lingering biases due to the “history” of former attention deployments. This review mainly focuses on reward-based history effects; yet other types of history effects such as (intertrial) priming, statistical learning and affective conditioning are also discussed. We argue that evidence from behavioral, eye-movement and neuroimaging studies supports the idea that selection history modulates the topographical landscape of spatial “priority” maps, such that attention is biased toward locations having the highest activation on this map.     

Spatial maps of directed visual attention

Simple reaction times (RTs) to a visual target are facilitated when the target occurs at a location expected by an observer, and are slowed when the target occurs at the mirror-symmetric location contralateral to the expectancy (e.g., Posner, 1978; Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). The spatial extent of this attention effect was examined by inducing subjects to expect the target at one location and introducing occasional probe flashes at other locations throughout the visual field. The results indicated that RTs to these probes were equivalent to those obtained at the expected location so long as the probe was in the same hemifield as the subject's expectancy. Conversely, RTs to probes in the hemifield opposite the expectancy generated uniformly slower response times. These results were obtained when the expected location varied in eccentricity from 2 degrees to 16 degrees along the horizontal meridian. In addition, when the expected and unexpected locations were within the same hemifield, no expectancy effects were observed. Under these conditions, the frequently used metaphor that directed visual attention operates like a spatially restricted "beam" appears inaccurate. The implications of these findings for current views of directed attention are considered.     

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.     

Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency

Studies of the spatial distribution of visual attention have shown that attentional facilitation monotonically decreases in a graded fashion with increasing distance from an attended location. However, reaction time (RT) measures have typically shown broader gradients than have signal detection (SD) measures of perceptual sensitivity. It is not clear whether these differences have arisen because the stages of information processing indexed by RT measures are different from those indexed by SD measures, or whether these differences are due to methodological confounds in the SD studies. In the present set of experiments, the spatial distribution of attention was studied by using a luminance detection task in an endogenous cuing paradigm that was designed to permit accurate calculations of SD and RT measures for targets at cued and uncued locations. Subjects made target-present/absent decisions at one of six possible cued or uncued upper visual hemifield locations on each trial. The results from three experiments suggest that the differences between broad and focal attentional distributions are not the result of different stages of information processing indexed by RT measures as opposed to SD measures. Rather, the differing distributions appear to reflect variations in attentional allocation strategies induced by the perceptual requirements typical of RT paradigms as opposed to SD paradigms. These findings support numerous prior studies showing that spatial attention affects perceptual sensitivity and that the strategic allocation of attention is a highly flexible process.     

The happy spotlight: positive mood and selective attention to rewarding information

Positive mood states are thought to sensitize individuals to rewards in their environment, presumably in the service of approach-related decision making and behavior. From a selective attention standpoint, such mood-related effects should be associated with selective attention biases favoring rewarding stimuli. No prior results along these lines have been reported. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic program of research designed to document such relations. Study 1 found that daily positive mood states were associated with attention to reward words in a spatial probe task. Studies 2-5 replicated this association in the context of mood manipulations. The latter studies also show that the effect generalizes across different mood manipulation procedures, is specific to positive mood states, and is particularly apparent in relation to rewarding (vs. non-rewarding) positive stimuli. The results extend our knowledge of mood-cognition relations and have important implications for understanding the social cognitive consequences of positive mood states.     

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

One major idea about spatial attention is that it serves to modulate crosstalk between features during reading. Two reading aloud experiments are reported in which a cue-validity manipulation was combined with manipulations that are thought to increase the likelihood of feature-level crosstalk: interletter spacing and the presence or absence of irrelevant features. Both experiments yielded an interaction between the effects of spatial cuing and each of these factors. These results are taken to support the hypothesis that when spatial attention is focused on the word, it provides protection against crosstalk among features in the context of reading aloud.     

Spatial distribution of attention in a visual alignment task: A reply to Hotopf and Brown

Summary Hotopf and Brown (1990) criticize the idea that both focal features and the measuring device operate to define a unitary attentional field. Logical arguments and empirical evidence are presented to counter the criticism.     

Area activation: a computational model of saccadic selectivity in visual search

The Area Activation Model (Pomplun, Reingold, Shen, & Williams, 2000) is a computational model predicting the statistical distribution of saccadic endpoints in visual search tasks. Its basic assumption is that saccades in visual search tend to foveate display areas that provide a maximum amount of task‐relevant information for processing during the subsequent fixation. In the present study, a counterintuitive prediction by the model is empirically tested, namely that saccadic selectivity towards stimulus features depends on the spatial arrangement of search items. We find good correspondence between simulated and empirically observed selectivity patterns, providing strong support for the Area Activation Model.     

SLAM: a connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks

SLAM, the SeLective Attention Model, performs visual selective attention tasks, an analysis of which shows that two processes, object and attribute selection, are both necessary and sufficient. It is based upon the McClelland and Rumelhart (1981) model for visual word recognition, with the addition of a response selection and evaluation mechanism. The responses may be correct or incorrect and, in particular conditions, SLAM may not make a response at all. Moreover, it allows for the generation of specific responses in time. SLAM's main characteristics are parallelism restricted by competition within modules, heterarchical processing in a hierarchical structure, and generation of responses as a result of relaxation given the conjoint constraints of stimulation, object, and attribute selection. The model is considered to represent an individual subject performing filtering tasks and demonstrates appropriate selective behavior. It is also tested quantitatively using a single tentative set of model parameters. The study reports simulations of four different filtering experiments, modeling response latencies, and error proportions. Specifications are made to take account of instructions, previous trials, and the effect of a barmarker cue and of asynchronies in stimulus and cue onsets. The model is then extended in order to provide simulations of a number of Stroop experiments, which can be regarded as filtering tasks with nonequivalent stimuli. The extension required for Stroop simulations is the addition of direct connections between compatible stimulus and response aspects. The direct connections do not affect the simulation of simpler filtering tasks. A variety of different experiments carried out by different authors is simulated. The model is discussed in terms of how modular architecture and the interaction of excitation and inhibition generate facilitation or inhibition of response latencies.     

Against the spotlight model of consciousness

The spotlight metaphor for the characterization of consciousness is examined. It is argued that, in effect, models based on this metaphor are not explanatory. In crucial respects, the models are not informative and they can account neither for the specific qualities of human consciousness nor for its function. In the spirit of pragmatic analyses in language, it is suggested that consciousness be viewed as an act. With this, a shift is made from a selectional to a generative perspective of consciousness. The proposal is grounded in a general critique of cognitive modelling in terms of underlying mental representations.     

Reward history modulates visual attention in an avian model

Animal Cognition - Attention can be biased towards previously reward-associated stimuli even when they are task-irrelevant and physically non-salient, although studies of reward-modulated attention...