Why does the gaze of others direct visual attention?

Viewing another person directing his or her gaze can produce automatic shifts of covert visual attention in the same direction. This holds true even when the task‐relevant target is much more likely to occur at the uncued location. These findings, along with other evidence, have been taken to suggest that gaze represents a “special” stimulus—the foundation of a social cognition system that can make inferences about the mental states of other people. However, gaze‐driven cueing effects could simply be due to spatial compatibility between cue and target. We compared the attentional effects of gaze shifts to a face with the tongue extended laterally to the left or right. When tongue direction was a nonpredictive cue, we found cueing effects from tongues that were indistinguishable from those produced by gaze. However, in contrast to previous findings with gaze, tongue cues did not overcome a validity manipulation in which targets were four times more likely to appear at the uncued location. We conclude that simple attentional cueing effects from gaze may be better explained by spatial compatibility, and that more complex, unique features of cueing from gaze may be better indices into perceptual systems specialized for social cognition.     

When does action resist visual illusions?

Over the past decade, many studies of non-pathological individuals have reported functional dissociations between perceptual judgments and motor responses. These results suggested an interpretation of the ventral and dorsal streams in the primate visual system as independent modules for visual awareness and the visual guidance of actions. However, recent comparisons of perception and grasping responses in size-contrast displays have been widely reported to show that apparent dissociations are actually experimental artifacts. An overview of the literature suggests that the issue of visuomotor dissociations in healthy individuals is far from settled. Some results suggest that immunity from visual illusions might be found when task requirements emphasize observer-relative reference frames. These results suggest that the functional specialization of the two visual subsystems might be less rigid than originally posited.     

Cueing the location of a distractor: an inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention?

Presenting an irrelevant distractor increases reaction times to a target. The current study shows that cueing the location of an upcoming 'distractor' can help to reduce the effects the distractor has on target processing. It is hypothesized that this reduction is due to the active inhibition of the cued location. In two experiments in which the location of the distractor was cued in advance, a reduced effect of the distractor on target-processing was observed. Analyses indicated that this effect was most likely caused by inhibition of the distractor location. The present findings suggest that inhibition plays an important role in visual-spatial selection processes and that this inhibitory mechanism can be controlled in a top-down fashion.     

Does a salient distractor capture attention early in processing?

Kim and Cave (1999) used spatial probes in order to measure the effects of bottom-up and top-down factors on the allocation of spatial attention over time. Subjects searched for a target with a unique shape, with a uniquely colored distractor present on each trial. The singleton distractor captured attention early in processing, whereas attention homed in on the target’s location later on. Kim and Cave (1999) concluded that top–down factors cannot prevent the presence of a salient distractor from delaying target selection. The present study tested the idea that such results were obtained only because subjects adopted the strategy of searching for the most salient item. Kim and Cave’s (1999) finding was replicated in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, instead of a feature search, subjects performed a conjunction search—that is, a task that could not be performed using a salience–based strategy. Probe response times were longest at the salient distractor’s location at both the short and the long stimulus onset asynchronies. These results suggest that, early in processing, top–down factors can exert their influence and prevent the capture of attention by a salient distractor.     

When does visual perceptual grouping affect multisensory integration?

Several studies have shown that the direction in which a visual apparent motion stream moves can influence the perceived direction of an auditory apparent motion stream (an effect known as crossmodal dynamic capture). However, little is known about the role that intramodal perceptual grouping processes play in the multisensory integration of motion information. The present study was designed to investigate the time course of any modulation of the cross-modal dynamic capture effect by the nature of the perceptual grouping taking place within vision. Participants were required to judge the direction of an auditory apparent motion stream while trying to ignore visual apparent motion streams presented in a variety of different configurations. Our results demonstrate that the cross-modal dynamic capture effect was influenced more by visual perceptual grouping when the conditions for intramodal perceptual grouping were set up prior to the presentation of the audiovisual apparent motion stimuli. However, no such modulation occurred when the visual perceptual grouping manipulation was established at the same time as or after the presentation of the audiovisual stimuli. These results highlight the importance of the unimodal perceptual organization of sensory information to the manifestation of multisensory integration.     

How does attention select and track spatially extended objects? New effects of attentional concentration and amplification

Real-world situations involve attending to spatially extended objects, often under conditions of motion and high processing load. The present experiments investigated such processing by requiring observers to attentionally track a number of long, moving lines. Concurrently, observers responded to sporadic probes as a measure of the distribution of attention across the lines. The results revealed that attention is concentrated at the centers of lines during tracking, despite their uniformity, and that this center advantage grew as the lines became longer: Not only did observers get worse near the endpoints, but they became better at the lines' centers, as if attention became more concentrated as the objects became more extended. These results begin to show how attention is flexibly allocated in online visual processing to extended dynamic objects.     

Does maintaining bindings in visual working memory require more attention than maintaining features?

ABSTRACT

Whether more attention is required for maintaining bindings than maintaining features in visual working memory (VWM) remains an open question. If maintaining bindings in VWM does not require more attention than maintaining features, is it related to the stability of binding representations? In this study, we explored whether maintaining bindings requires more attention than maintaining features for similar and dissimilar objects by inserting a feature report task into the maintenance phase of VWM in Experiments 1 and 2. We also investigated whether the effect of similarity on the attentional requirement for maintaining bindings and features is due to the stability of VWM representations by inserting a suffix during the maintenance phase of VWM in Experiment 3. The results showed that when object-based attention was consumed, bindings were more impaired than features for dissimilar objects but not for similar objects. We also found that the bindings of similar objects were less interfered by the suffix than those of dissimilar objects. Our findings suggest that maintaining bindings does not require more attention than maintaining features when the binding representations are stable in VWM and similarity improves the stability of binding representations.     

Are visual features of a looming or receding object processed in a capacity-free manner?

Numerous experiments have examined whether moving stimuli capture spatial attention but none have sought to determine whether visual features of looming and receding objects are extracted in a capacity-free manner. The current experiment (N = 28) used the task-choice procedure originated by Besner and Care (2003) to examine this possibility. Stimuli were presented in 3D space by manipulating retinal disparity. Results indicate that features of an object are extracted in a capacity-free manner for both looming and receding objects for participants who consciously perceive motion but not for participants who do not consciously perceive motion. These results suggest that the cognitive system is biased to process potentially animate objects, perhaps because of the evolutionary advantage this cognitive ability may provide.     

Does attention affect visual feature integration?

Two questions are investigated in this work: first, whether the integration of color and shape information is affected by attending to the stimulus location, and second, whether attending to a stimulus location enhances the perceptual representation of the stimulus or merely affects decision processes. In three experiments, subjects were briefly presented with colored letters. On most trials, subjects were precued to the stimulus location (valid cue); on some trials, a nonstimulus location was cued (invalid cue). Subjects were less likely to incorrectly combine colors and letter shapes following a valid cue. The attentional facilitation afforded by the cue was not limited to feature integration but also affected the registration of features. However, when the amount of feature information was strictly controlled, attention still affected feature integration. The results indicate that orienting attention to the location of the cue affects the quality of the perceptual representation for features and their integration.     

Does one's name attract visual attention?

Does one's name attract visual attention? To answer this question, we conducted four experiments. Experiment 1 adopted the method of a previous study (Bundesen, Kyllingsbæk, Houmann, & Jensen, 1997), but used Japanese names; the results of this experiment replicated the lack of evidence for attentional attraction by the observer's name. Experiments 2 and 3 tested two arguments put forward by Bundesen et al. (1997) to explain this null effect of observer's name on attentional attraction. The results showed that neither efficient target selection by colour nor the number of target characters could explain the null effect. Alternatively, we proposed that the observer's set plays a critical role in the attentional attraction of observer's name. Experiments 4 and 5 tested this idea by manipulating the observer's set; the results showed that when the observer's set matches the target defining feature, the observer's name does capture attention. These five experiments suggest that attentional attraction by an observer's name depends on the relationship between the observer's set and task.     

When does feedback facilitate learning of words?

Some researchers have suggested that although feedback may enhance performance during associative learning, it does so at the expense of later retention. To examine this issue, subjects (N = 258) learned Luganda-English word pairs. After 2 initial exposures to the materials, subjects were tested on each item several times, with the presence and type of feedback varying between subjects. A final test followed after 1 week. Supplying the correct answer after an incorrect response not only improved performance during the initial learning session--it also increased final retention by 494%. On the other hand, feedback after correct responses made little difference either immediately or at a delay, regardless of whether the subject was confident in the response. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.     

Does visual experience influence the spatial distribution of auditory attention?

Sighted individuals are less accurate and slower to localize sounds coming from the peripheral space than sounds coming from the frontal space. This specific bias in favour of the frontal auditory space seems reduced in early blind individuals, who are particularly better than sighted individuals at localizing sounds coming from the peripheral space. Currently, it is not clear to what extent this bias in the auditory space is a general phenomenon or if it applies only to spatial processing (i.e. sound localization). In our approach we compared the performance of early blind participants with that of sighted subjects during a frequency discrimination task with sounds originating either from frontal or peripheral locations. Results showed that early blind participants discriminated faster than sighted subjects both peripheral and frontal sounds. In addition, sighted subjects were faster at discriminating frontal sounds than peripheral ones, whereas early blind participants showed equal discrimination speed for frontal and peripheral sounds. We conclude that the spatial bias observed in sighted subjects reflects an unbalance in the spatial distribution of auditory attention resources that is induced by visual experience.     

When do luminance changes capture attention?

In two experiments, we examined the ability of task-irrelevant changes in luminance to capture attention in an irrelevant singleton search. By using uniform increment and decrement arrays, we were able to create changes of the same absolute magnitude, but resulting in a singleton with either higher or lower contrast magnitude, relative to other elements in the search array. A condition where a singleton changed contrast polarity without a concomitant change in the overall contrast magnitude was also included. It was found that only luminance changes resulting in a singleton having increased contrast (or saliency) were effective in capturing attention. In addition, no attentional capture was observed when the irrelevant singleton was characterized by the equivalent amount of static luminance differences, suggesting a unique attentional prioritization of luminance changes that increase singleton saliency.     

When can attention not be divided?

Humans can guide simple concurrent and seemingly independent movements of digits between hands, but it is shown here that they find it impossible to do this with digits within a hand. This inability demonstrates a basic characteristic of the relation between attention and the control of the skeletal musculature. Mechanisms that are available to provide the illusion of concurrent and independent guidance of separate movements between hands are not available within a single-hand control system. There is no reason to believe that the inability to divide focal attention in the guidance of two concurrent controlled activities, as exemplified in the example of within-hand movements, does not also extend to nonmotor processes.     

When do microsaccades follow spatial attention?

Following up on an exchange about the relation between microsaccades and spatial attention (Horowitz, Fencsik, Fine, Yurgenson, & Wolfe, 2007; Horowitz, Fine, Fencsik, Yurgenson, & Wolfe, 2007; Laubrock, Engbert, Rolfs, & Kliegl, 2007), we examine the effects of selection criteria and response modality. We show that for Posner cuing with saccadic responses, microsaccades go with attention in at least 75% of cases (almost 90% if probability matching is assumed) when they are first (or only) microsaccades in the cue—target interval and when they occur between 200 and 400 msec after the cue. The relation between spatial attention and the direction of microsaccades drops to chance level for unselected microsaccades collected during manual-response conditions. Analyses of data from four cross-modal cuing experiments demonstrate an above-chance, intermediate link for visual cues, but no systematic relation for auditory cues. Thus, the link between spatial attention and direction of microsaccades depends on the experimental condition and time of occurrence, but it can be very strong.     

When does grouping happen?

Recent research on perceptual grouping is described with particular emphasis on identifying the level(s) at which grouping factors operate. Contrary to the classical view of grouping as an early, two-dimensional, image-based process, recent experimental results show that it is strongly influenced by phenomena related to perceptual constancy, such as binocular depth perception, lightness constancy, amodal completion, and illusory contours. These findings imply that at least some grouping processes operate at the level of phenomenal perception rather than at the level of the retinal image. Preliminary evidence is reported showing that grouping can affect perceptual constancy, suggesting that grouping processes must also operate at an early, preconstancy level. If so, grouping may be a ubiquitous, ongoing aspect of visual organization that occurs for each level of representation rather than as a single stage that can be definitively localized relative to other perceptual processes.