Selective reaching: evidence for multiple frames of reference

Students participated in 3 experiments investigating the use of environment- and action-centered reference frames in selective reaching. They pointed to a green target appearing either with or without a red distractor. Target-distractor distance was manipulated, and distractor interference (difference between distractor trials and no-distractor trials) was measured in reaction time, movement time, and movement endpoint. Target-distractor distance determined the dominant frame of reference. Small distances evoked an environment-centered framework that encoded targets within an external context. Large distances evoked an action-centered framework that encoded targets relative to the start position of the hand. Results support the hypothesis that the brain represents spatial information in multiple frames of reference, with the dominant frame of reference being dependent on the task demands.     

External and body-centered frames of reference in spatial memory: evidence from touch

The study reports independent effects of external and body-centered reference cues on spatial coding of an irregular sequence of haptic locations. The aim was to investigate the nature of spatial coding by using a modality that does not provide distal cues routinely. Our method isolates and combines body-centered and external spatial reference cues for irregularly placed locations, scanned along a raised-line route. Disrupting body-centered reference for the locations, by orienting the map differently to the body in the test phase than in the presentation phase, doubled errors in positioning the locations along the route in recall. Adding external reference, by giving instructions to use a surrounding frame for reference when body-centered coding was disrupted, reduced errors to near baseline (no-rotation) levels. Adding external reference cues to intact (not displaced) body-centered reference halved errors, as compared with the baseline. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that accurate spatial coding is determined by the congruence of potential reference cues from diverse sources. The new findings suggest that external and body-centered reference cues have independent additive effects on spatial coding. The sequence of locations had a significant effect in all the reference conditions, suggesting the additional use of fortuitous but distinctive local touch cues on the route. The discussion considers theoretical and practical implications of the results.     

Influence of reference frames on asymmetries in Troxler's effect

In 1804, Troxier discovered that, when an observer fixates on a point in central vision and attends to a peripheral stationary stimulus, the peripheral stimulus eventually fades from awareness. This phenomenon is known as Troxler's effect and is allegedly influenced by spatial attention. Asymmetries in Troxler's effect along horizontal and vertical meridian were a recent discovery. However, viewer- and environment-centered reference frames were aligned in prior studies, making it impossible to assess whether asymmetries correspond to viewer- versus environment-centered coordinate systems. This study was undertaken to (a) replicate the asymmetries in the upright condition among 39 participants without health issues and (b) use the asymmetrics to test contrasting predictions made by viewer- and environment-centered coordinate systems when they are decoupled using an experimental head-tilt condition. The horizontal and vertical asymmetries were replicated and consistent with a viewer-centered rather than an environment-centered reference frame.     

Spatial span under translation: A study of reference frames

The nature of the reference frame used to remember location sequences in a computer-presented version of spatial span was investigated by moving the template (a rectangular frame enclosing nine target squares) across the screen during presentation and/or during recall. Movement of the display during presentation substantially impaired memory in comparison with a stationary display (Experiment 1). However, there was no effect of template movement during recall (Experiment 2). In Experiments 3 and 4, the template was moved through the same screen locations during presentation and recall. When the extrinsic, or screen location, of each position was repeated identically on each trial but the sequence on the template varied, learning was not facilitated (Experiment 3). When the template sequences were repeated across trials but extrinsic location varied, the sequences were rapidly learned (Experiment 4). In this version of spatial span, location sequences appear to be encoded in an intrinsic frame of reference that is based on the template. Movement of the template during encoding impairs this process, possibly because concurrent attention shifts prevent the encoding of locations. The results are discussed with respect to recent studies of positional encoding in which multiple reference frames were available.     

What is learned in spatial contextual cuing--configuration or individual locations?

With the use of spatial contextual cuing, we tested whether subjects learned to associate target locations with overall configurations of distractors or with individual locations of distractors. In Experiment 1, subjects were trained on 36 visual search displays that contained 36 sets of distractor locations and 18 target locations. Each target location was paired with two sets of distractor locations on separate trials. After training, the subjects showed perfect transfer to recombined displays, which were created by combining half of one trained distractor set with half of another trained distractor set. This result suggests that individual distractor locations were sufficient to cue the target location. In Experiment 2, the subjects showed good transfer from trained displays to rescaled, displaced, and perceptually regrouped displays, suggesting that the relative locations among items were also learned. Thus, both individual target-distractor associations and configural associations are learned in contextual cuing.     

What is learned in spatial contextual cuing— configuration or individual locations?

With the use of spatial contextual cuing, we tested whether subjects learned to associate target locations with overall configurations of distractors or with individual locations of distractors. In Experiment 1, subjects were trained on 36 visual search displays that contained 36 sets of distractor locations and 18 target locations. Each target location was paired with two sets of distractor locations on separate trials. After training, the subjects showed perfect transfer to recombined displays, which were created by combining half of one trained distractor set with half of another trained distractor set. This result suggests that individual distractor locations were sufficient to cue the target location. In Experiment 2, the subjects showed good transfer from trained displays to rescaled, displaced, and perceptually regrouped displays, suggesting that the relative locations among items were also learned. Thus, both individual target-distractor associations and configural associations are learned in contextual cuing.     

Task-irrelevant distractors in the delay period interfere selectively with visual short-term memory for spatial locations

Visual short-term memory (VSTM) enables the representation of information in a readily accessible state. VSTM is typically conceptualized as a form of “active” storage that is resistant to interference or disruption, yet several recent studies have shown that under some circumstances task-irrelevant distractors may indeed disrupt performance. Here, we investigated how task-irrelevant visual distractors affected VSTM by asking whether distractors induce a general loss of remembered information or selectively interfere with memory representations. In a VSTM task, participants recalled the spatial location of a target visual stimulus after a delay in which distractors were presented on 75% of trials. Notably, the distractor’s eccentricity always matched the eccentricity of the target, while in the critical conditions the distractor’s angular position was shifted either clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the target. We then computed estimates of recall error for both eccentricity and polar angle. A general interference model would predict an effect of distractors on both polar angle and eccentricity errors, while a selective interference model would predict effects of distractors on angle but not on eccentricity errors. Results showed that for stimulus angle there was an increase in the magnitude and variability of recall errors. However, distractors had no effect on estimates of stimulus eccentricity. Our results suggest that distractors selectively interfere with VSTM for spatial locations.     

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.     

Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor

In two experiments using spatial probes, we measured the temporal and spatial interactions between top-down control of attention and bottom-up interference from a salient distractor in visual search. The subjects searched for a square among circles, ignoring color. Probe response times showed that a color singleton distractor could draw attention to its location in the early stage of visual processing (before a 100-msec stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]), but only when the color singleton distractor was located far from the target. Apparently the bottom-up activation of the singleton distractor’s location is affected early on by local interactions with nearby stimulus locations. Moreover, probe results showed that a singleton distractor did not receive attention after extended practice. These results suggest that top-down control of attention is possible at an early stage of visual processing. In the long-SOA condition (150-msec SOA), spatial attention selected the target location over distractor locations, and this tendency occurred with or without extended practice.     

Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: on the nature of interference from a salient distractor.

In two experiments using spatial probes, we measured the temporal and spatial interactions between top-down control of attention and bottom-up interference from a salient distractor in visual search. The subjects searched for a square among circles, ignoring color. Probe response times showed that a color singleton distractor could draw attention to its location in the early stage of visual processing (before a 100-msec stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]), but only when the color singleton distractor was located far from the target. Apparently the bottom-up activation of the singleton distractor's location is affected early on by local interactions with nearby stimulus locations. Moreover, probe results showed that a singleton distractor did not receive attention after extended practice. These results suggest that top-down control of attention is possible at an early stage of visual processing. In the long-SOA condition (150-msec SOA), spatial attention selected the target location over distractor locations, and this tendency occurred with or without extended practice.     

Two-category place representations persist over body rotations

We explored a system that constructs environment-centered frames of reference and coordinates memory for the azimuth of an object in an enclosed space. For one group, we provided two environmental cues (doors): one in the front, and one in the rear. For a second group, we provided two object cues: a front and a rear cue. For a third group, we provided no external cues; we assumed that for this group, their reference frames would be determined by the orthogonal geometry of the floor-and-wall junction that divides a space in half or into multiple territories along the horizontal continuum. Using Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Duncan’s (Psychological Review 98: 352-376, 1991) category-adjustment model (cue-based fuzzy boundary version) to fit the data, we observed different reference frames than have been seen in prior studies involving two-dimensional domains. The geometry of the environment affected all three conditions and biased the remembered object locations within a two-category (left vs. right) environmental frame. The influence of the environmental geometry remained observable even after the participants’ heading within the environment changed due to a body rotation, attenuating the effect of the front but not of the rear cue. The door and object cues both appeared to define boundaries of spatial categories when they were used for reorientation. This supports the idea that both types of cues can assist in environment-centered memory formation.     

Spatial updating relies on an egocentric representation of space: Effects of the number of objects

Models of spatial updating attempt to explain how representations of spatial relationships between the actor and objects in the environment change as the actor moves. In allocentric models, object locations are encoded in an external reference frame, and only the actor’s position and orientation in that reference frame need to be updated. Thus, spatial updating should be independent of the number of objects in the environment (set size). In egocentric updating models, object locations are encoded relative to the actor, so the location of each object relative to the actor must be updated as the actor moves. Thus, spatial updating efficiency should depend on set size. We examined which model better accounts for human spatial updating by having people reconstruct the locations of varying numbers of virtual objects either from the original study position or from a changed viewing position. In consistency with the egocentric updating model, object localization following a viewpoint change was affected by the number of objects in the environment.     

Forgetting in spatial memories acquired in a virtual environment

This study examined forgetting in spatial memories acquired in a virtual environment. In the two experiments, participants learned the locations of eight objects. In Experiment 1, the objects were presented as photographs in either a laboratory or in an equivalent virtual environment. Irrespective of learning condition, accuracy of recall of the locations was found to deteriorate after a retention interval of approximately 1 week. In Experiment 2, following virtual learning, three groups of participants performed a series of non‐spatial tasks of low, intermediate or high difficulty. The tasks were presented in a retention interval of 2 hours. A comparison of recall accuracy before and after presentation of the interference tasks indicated that that the groups were not differentially affected by the difficulty of the retroactive interference tasks. However, the groups differed in their subjective assessment of the mental workload involved in the tasks. The results are discussed with reference to a prominent theory of forgetting. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Development of allocentric spatial recall from new viewpoints in virtual reality

Using landmarks and other scene features to recall locations from new viewpoints is a critical skill in spatial cognition. In an immersive virtual reality task, we asked children 3.5–4.5 years old to remember the location of a target using various cues. On some trials they could use information from their own self‐motion. On some trials they could use a view match. In the very hardest kind of trial, they were ‘teleported’ to a new viewpoint and could only use an allocentric spatial representation. This approach provides a strict test for allocentric coding (without either a matching viewpoint or self‐motion information) while avoiding additional task demands in previous studies (it does not require them to deal with a small table‐top environment or to manage stronger cue conflicts). Both the younger and older groups were able to point back at the target location better than chance when they could use view matching and/or self‐motion, but allocentric recall was only seen in the older group (4.0–4.5). In addition, we only obtained evidence for a specific kind of allocentric recall in the older group: they tracked one major axis of the space significantly above chance, r(158) = .28, but not the other, r(158) = ?.01. We conclude that there is a major qualitative change in coding for spatial recall around the fourth birthday, potentially followed by further development towards fully flexible recall from new viewpoints.     

The effects of unilateral pulvinar damage in humans on reflexive orienting and filtering of irrelevant information

The effects of damage to the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus in humans on reflexive orienting and selective attention were investigated. In a spatial orienting task three patients with unilateral pulvinar damage determined the location of a visual target that followed a cue that was not informative as to the targets location. Contralesional targets were responded to more slowly than ipsilesional targets. Also, at long cue target intervals patients responses to contralesional targets that appeared at previously cued locations were slower than to non-cued locations indicating that pulvinar damage does not affect inhibition of return. In the selective attention task two of the patients identified a target that appeared at one level of a global-local hierarchical stimulus while ignoring a distractor present at the other level. The distractor indicated either the same response as the target or a different response. Response times to targets in both visual fields were similar as were interference effects from the ignored distractors. These data indicate that engaging attention contralesionally is not impaired in discrimination tasks and that filtering of irrelevant information was not impaired contralesionally.     

Evidence for attentional processing in spatial localization

Using a dual-task methodology, this study examined the involvement of selective attention in spatial localization. Thirty participants located a single, briefly presented, peripheral target stimulus, appearing in one of 50 positions on either side of a central fixation point, with or without the requirement to identify a simultaneously presented central distractor stimulus. Results revealed a robust interference effect in localization performance at short target durations that depended on the number of the to-be-identified distractor items. This outcome provides convergent support for the role of the attentional system in spatial localization.     

Dissociating cognitive and motor interference effects on kinesthetic short-term memory

In two experiments, we investigated how short-term memory of kinesthetically defined spatial locations suffers from either motor or cognitive distraction. In Exp. 1, 22 blindfolded participants moved a handle with their right hand towards a mechanical stop and back to the start and then reproduced the encoded stop position by a second movement. The retention interval was adjusted to approximately 0 and 8 s. In half of the trials participants had to provide a verbal judgment of the target distance after encoding (cognitive distractor). Analyses of constant and variable errors indicated that the verbal judgments interfered with the motor reproduction only, when the retention interval was long. In Exp. 2, 22 other participants performed the same task but instead of providing verbal distance estimations they performed an additional movement either with their right or left hand during the retention interval. Constant error was affected by the side of the interpolated movement (right vs. left hand) and by the delay interval. The results show that reproduction of kinesthetically encoded spatial locations is affected differently in long- and short-retention intervals by cognitive and motor interference. This suggests that reproduction behavior is based on distinct codes during immediate vs. delayed recall.     

Trait anxiety,anxious mood,and threat detection

Abstract

Subjects were required to detect either an angry or a happy target face in a stimulus array of 12 photographs. It was found with neutral distractor faces that those high in trait anxiety detected angry faces faster than did low trait-anxious subjects, but the two groups did not differ in their speed of detection of happy targets. In addition, high trait-anxious subjects detected happy target faces slower than low trait-anxious subjects when the distractor faces were angry. Comparable findings were obtained whether or not there was anxious mood induction. It was concluded that high trait-anxious individuals have facilitated detection and processing of environmental threat relative to low trait-anxious subjects, which enhance performance when the target is threatening, but which impair performance when the distractors are threatening.     

A note on the development of recall of spatial location

Recall of spatial location was studied with 5, 8, 12--13, and 17--18 year old subjects. Pictures of objects were shown one at a time in one of the four quadrants of a projection screen which was either blank (NF) or divided by a cross into four quadrants (F). The presence of the frame (F) did not affect item recall, but facilitated location recall more, the younger the subjects. Intentional learning of location was superior to incidental learning in the youngest but not in older children. The results are in agreement with Bryant's (1974) analysis of perceptual development which emphasizes the use of external spatial frames of reference in the encoding of attributes of visual objects in young children.     

Developmental Differences in the Influence of Distractors on Maintenance in Spatial Working Memory

This study examined whether attention to a location plays a role in the maintenance of locations in spatial working memory in young children as it does in adults. This study was the first to investigate whether distractors presented during the delay of a spatial working-memory task influenced young children’s memory responses. Across 2 experiments, 3- and 6-year-olds completed a spatial working-memory task featuring a static target location and distractor location. Results indicated a change from 3 years to 6 years of age in how distractors influenced memory. Six-year-olds’ memory responses were biased away from a distractor that was close to the target location and on the outside of the target location relative to the center of the monitor. Distractors that were far from the target or that were toward the center of the monitor relative to the target location had no effect. Three-year-olds’ responses were biased toward a distractor when the distractor was on the outside of the target location and farther from the target. Distractors that were near the target location or toward the center of the monitor had no effect. These biases provide evidence that young children’s maintenance of a location in memory is influenced by attention.