Occlusion, symmetry, and object-based attention: reply to Saiki (2000)

J. Saiki (2000) argued that, because the stimuli used by M. Behrmann, R. S. Zemel, and M. C. Mozer (1998) were confounded by symmetry, conclusions about whether amodally completed objects can benefit from object-based attention are unwarranted. Here, the authors examine J. Saiki's claim further and expand on their view of the mechanisms underlying object-based attention, suggesting that perceptual organization is the process whereby features from a single object are selectively attended. In light of this, they claim that heuristics such as symmetry and collinearity play an important role in the facilitation of features from a single object. In support of this claim, they present data from a further experiment using displays that exploit common fate, another grouping heuristic, and show that, under these conditions, the hallmark of object-based attention, a single-object advantage, is obtained for the occluded (amodally completed) shapes.     

The role of closure in defining the "objects" of object-based attention

Many recent studies have concluded that the underlying units of visual attention are often discrete objects whose boundaries constrain the allocation of attention. However, relatively few studies have explored the particular stimulus cues that determine what counts as an "object" of attention. We explore this issue in the context of the two-rectangles stimuli previously used by many investigators. We first show, using both spatial-cuing and divided-attention paradigms, that same-object advantages occur even when the ends of the two rectangles are not drawn. This is consistent with previous reports that have emphasized the importance of individual contours in guiding attention, and our study shows that such effects can occur in displays that also contain grouping cues. In our divided-attention experiment, however, this contour-driven same-object advantage was significantly weaker than that obtained with the standard stimulus, with the added cue of closure--demonstrating that contour-based processes are not the whole story. These results confirm and extend the observation that same-object advantages can be observed even without full-fledged objects. At the same time, however, these studies show that boundary closure-one of the most important cues to objecthood per se-can directly influence attention. We conclude that object-based attention is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon; object-based effects can be independently strengthened or weakened by multiple cues to objecthood.     

The role of closure in defining the “objects” of object-based attention

Many recent studies have concluded that the underlying units of visual attention are often discrete objects whose boundaries constrain the allocation of attention. However, relatively few studies have explored the particular stimulus cues that determine what counts as an “object” of attention. We explore this issue in the context of the two-rectangles stimuli previously used by many investigators. We first show, using both spatial-cuing and divided-attention paradigms, that same-object advantages occur even when the ends of the two rectangles are not drawn. This is consistent with previous reports that have emphasized the importance of individual contours in guiding attention, and our study shows that such effects can occur in displays that also contain grouping cues. In our divided-attention experiment, however, this contour-driven same-object advantage was significantly weaker than that obtained with the standard stimulus, with the added cue of closure—demonstrating that contour-based processes are not the whole story. These results confirm and extend the observation that same-object advantages can be observed even without full-fledged objects. At the same time, however, these studies show that boundary closure—one of the most important cues to objecthood per se—can directly influence attention. We conclude that object-based attention is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon; object-based effects can be independently strengthened or weakened by multiple cues to objecthood.     

Pigeons' recognition of partially occluded objects depends on specific training experience

DiPietro et al (2002 Perception 31 1299-1312) reported a dramatic improvement in pigeons' recognition of partially occluded objects after the birds had been trained to recognize objects that were placed on top of another surface. Here, we investigated whether training with partially erased stimuli or with notched stimuli that had a thin gap between the object and another surface would similarly enhance pigeons' recognition of partially occluded objects. We found that erased training had no effect on the birds' recognition of partially occluded objects. Training pigeons to recognize notched objects improved their performance with the same objects when they were partially occluded; but this improvement did not transfer to novel objects, a result that DiPietro et al reported after on-top training. Together, the present results and those of DiPietro et al implicate prior experience as a key factor in pigeons' recognition of partially occluded objects. Training experiences which improve recognition of partially occluded objects may do so because they improve decomposition of complex two-dimensional scenes by pigeons into separate entities.     

Effects of instantaneous object input and past experience on object-based attention

Evidence for object-based attention typically comes from studies using displays with unchanged objects, and no consensus has yet been reached as to whether the object effect would be altered by changing object displays or having seen this change across-trials. We examined this by using modifications of the double-rectangle cuing paradigm of Egly et al. [Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177], and our results, when the objects remained unchanging, replicated the original object effect. However, no object effect was found when the rectangles disappeared from view in the last (target) frame. This was true regardless of the likelihood of the rectangles disappearing, indicating the importance of instantaneous object inputs for object-based attention. The across-trial experience of seeing a different object (boomerang), however, was found to influence the object effect when the cued rectangles persisted throughout the trial. Unlike previous studies, which emphasize one or the other, we demonstrate clearly that instantaneous object inputs and past experience interact to determine the way attention selects objects.     

The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects

Attention operates to select both spatial locations and perceptual objects. However, the specific mechanism by which attention is oriented to objects is not well understood. We examined the means by which object structure constrains the distribution of spatial attention (i.e., a "grouped array"). Using a modified version of the Egly et al. object cuing task, we systematically manipulated within-object distance and object boundaries. Four major findings are reported: 1) spatial attention forms a gradient across the attended object; 2) object boundaries limit the distribution of this gradient, with the spread of attention constrained by a boundary; 3) boundaries within an object operate similarly to across-object boundaries: we observed object-based effects across a discontinuity within a single object, without the demand to divide or switch attention between discrete object representations; and 4) the gradient of spatial attention across an object directly modulates perceptual sensitivity, implicating a relatively early locus for the grouped array representation.     

Visual cognition influences early vision: the role of visual short-term memory in amodal completion

A partly occluded visual object is perceptually filled in behind the occluding surface, a process known as amodal completion or visual interpolation. Previous research focused on the image-based properties that lead to amodal completion. In the present experiments, we examined the role of a higher-level visual process-visual short-term memory (VSTM)-in amodal completion. We measured the degree of amodal completion by asking participants to perform an object-based attention task on occluded objects while maintaining either zero or four items in visual working memory. When no items were stored in VSTM, participants completed the occluded objects; when four items were stored in VSTM, amodal completion was halted (Experiment 1). These results were not caused by the influence of VSTM on object-based attention per se (Experiment 2) or by the specific location of to-be-remembered items (Experiment 3). Items held in VSTM interfere with amodal completion, which suggests that amodal completion may not be an informationally encapsulated process, but rather can be affected by high-level visual processes.     

Limitations of object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory

The present study investigated object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory for 2 features within the same dimension that occur on different parts of an object. Using the change-detection paradigm, this experiment studied objects with 2 colors and objects with 2 orientations. Participants found it easier to monitor 1 rather than both features of such objects, even when decision noise was properly controlled for. However, no object-based benefit was observed for encoding the 2 features of each object that were of the same dimension. When similar stimuli were used but the 2 features of each object were from different dimensions (color and orientation), an object-based benefit was observed. These results thus impose a major constraint on object-based feature encoding theories by showing that only features from different dimensions can benefit from object-based encoding.     

Object-based attention with endogenous cuing and positional certainty

Previous studies have concluded that object-based attention does not always arise if attention is cued endogenously (Macquistan, 1997) or if the target location is known with certainty (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002). In the Experiments reported here, we found object-based attention even when the locations of the two targets were known with certainty due to presentation of an endogenous cue. However, object-based attention can be prevented by limiting the exposure time of the object stimuli. These findings provide additional evidence against a search prioritization account of object-based attention. They lead to a fuller view of the role of object boundaries in directing attention. Object-based attention is frequently used spontaneously, even when the object boundaries are irrelevant to the task. However, object segmentation is not necessary for all tasks, because attention can be allocated before the stimulus has been segregated into objects.     

The return of object-based attention: selection of multiple-region objects

Objects can control the focus of attention, allowing features on the same object to be selected more easily than features on different objects. In the present experiments, we investigated the perceptual processes that contribute to such object-based attentional effects. Previous research has demonstrated that object-based effects occur for single-region objects but not for multiple-region objects under some conditions (Experiment 1, Watson & Kramer, 1999). Such results are surprising, because most objects in natural scenes are composed of multiple regions. Previous findings could therefore limit the usefulness of an object-based selection mechanism. We explored the generality of these single-region selection results by manipulating the extent to which different (i.e., multiple) regions of a single object perceptually grouped together. Object-based attentional effects were attenuated when multiple regions did not group into a single perceptual object (Experiment 1). However, when multiple regions grouped together based on (1) edge continuation (Experiments 2 and 3) or (2) part and occlusion cues (Experiment 4), we observed object-based effects. Our results suggest that object-based attention is a robust process that can select multiple-region objects, provided the regions of such objects cohere on the basis of perceptual grouping cues.     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

Cued visual attention does not distinguish between occluded and occluding objects

Does visual attention spread from the cued end of an occluded object to locations occupied by inferred portions of that object? We investigated this question by using a probe detection paradigm with two-dimensional (2-D) displays of occluded objects. Probes could appear in occluded or nonoccluded locations on either a cued or noncued object. Participants responded faster to probes appearing within the region of space occupied by the cued object. This was true not only when the probe appeared in positions separated from the cued location by an occluder (as demonstrated by Moore, Yantis, & Vaughan, 1998), but also when it appeared in positions on the occluder itself. Thus, results suggest that cued facilitation spreads to regions of noncued occluding objects that overlap cued occluded objects in 2-D space.     

Spatial short-term memory assists in maintaining occluded objects

We examined the role of spatial short-term memory (SSTM) in maintaining the hidden portions of occluded objects. We measured the degree of maintenance by asking participants to perform an object-based attention task on occluded objects while maintaining four locations in SSTM. SSTM did not interfere with object-based selection generally. Maintenance of occluded portions of objects was prevented when four locations were held in SSTM and these locations did not overlap with the locations of occluded objects. Importantly, when the observers remembered locations that overlapped with the occluded regions of objects, the occluded objects were maintained behind the occluder. These results suggest that SSTM participates in maintaining the occluded sections of objects.     

The modulation of inhibition of return by objectinternal structure: Implications for theories of object-based attentional selection

Recently, Vecera, Behrmann, and McGoldrick (2000), using a divided-attention task, reported that targets are detected more accurately when they occur on the same structural part of an object, suggesting that attention can be directed toward object-internal features. We present converging evidence using the object-based inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm as an implicit measure of selection. The results show that IOR is attenuated when cues and targets appear on the same part of an object relative to when they are separated by a part boundary. These findings suggest that object-based mechanisms of selection can operate over shape representations that make explicit information about objectinternal structure.     

An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action?

We examined Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, and Ellis’s (Psychological Science 23:152–157, 2012) claim that the object-based correspondence effect (i.e., faster keypress responses when the orientation of an object’s graspable part corresponds with the response location than when it does not) is the result of object-based attention (vision–action binding). In Experiment 1, participants determined the category of a centrally located object (kitchen utensil vs. tool), as in Goslin et al.’s study. The handle orientation (left vs. right) did or did not correspond with the response location (left vs. right). We found no correspondence effect on the response times (RTs) for either category. The effect was also not evident in the P1 and N1 components of the event-related potentials, which are thought to reflect the allocation of early visual attention. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 for centrally located objects, even when the object was presented 45 times (33 more times than in Exp. 1). Critically, the correspondence effects on RTs, P1s, and N1s emerged only when the object was presented peripherally, so that the object handle was clearly located to the left or right of fixation. Experiment 3 provided further evidence that the effect was observed only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center. These findings contradict those of Goslin et al. and provide no evidence that an intended grasping action modulates visual attention. Instead, the findings support the spatial-coding account of the object-based correspondence effect.     

Shifting attention into and out of objects: evaluating the processes underlying the object advantage

Visual cuing studies have been widely used to demonstrate and explore contributions from both object- and location-based attention systems. A common finding has been a response advantage for shifts of attention occurring within an object, relative to shifts of an equal distance between objects. The present study examined this advantage for within-object shifts in terms of engage and disengage operations within the object- and location-based attention systems. The rationale was that shifts of attention between objects require object-based attention to disengage from one object before shifting to another, something that is not required for shifts of attention within an object or away from a location. One- and two-object displays were used to assess object-based contributions related to disengaging and engaging attention within, between, into, and out of objects. The results suggest that the "object advantage" commonly found in visual cuing experiments in which shifts of attention are required is primarily due to disengage operations associated with object-based attention.     

Attentional resources in visual tracking through occlusion: the high-beams effect

A considerable amount of research has uncovered heuristics that the visual system employs to keep track of objects through periods of occlusion. Relatively little work, by comparison, has investigated the online resources that support this processing. We explored how attention is distributed when featurally identical objects become occluded during multiple object tracking. During tracking, observers had to detect small probes that appeared sporadically on targets, distracters, occluders, or empty space. Probe detection rates for these categories were taken as indexes of the distribution of attention throughout the display and revealed two novel effects. First, probe detection on an occluder’s surface was better when either a target or distractor was currently occluded in that location, compared to when no object was behind that occluder. Thus even occluded (and therefore invisible) objects recruit object-based attention. Second, and more surprising, probe detection for both targets and distractors was always better when they were occluded, compared to when they were visible. This new attentional high-beams effect indicates that the ability to track through occlusion, though seemingly effortless, in fact requires the active allocation of special attentional resources.     

Object-based attentional selection and awareness of objects

This study examined whether object-based attentional selection depends on the observer's awareness of objects, using objects defined by perceptual completion. As an indicator of object-based attention, we studied the same-object advantage, where observers respond faster to a target within a cued object than within a noncued object. The same-object advantage was not found in the condition where observers were unaware of the objects (inattentional blindness). On the other hand, the same-object advantage was observed in the condition where observers were aware of the objects. These results suggest that the intensity of object representations can be influenced by observers’ awareness of objects, which affects the occurrence of object-based effects. We propose that attention/inattention (or awareness/unawareness) is graded and observers’ awareness of the objects might serve to boost an otherwise noisy/low signal representation for obtaining object-based effects.     

Selective attention to the parts of an object

Recent empirical results suggest that there is a decrement in dividing attention between two objects in a scene compared with focusing attention on a single object. However, objects can be made of individual parts. Is there a decrement for dividing attention across different parts of a single object? We addressed this question in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that attention can exhibit part-based selection—that is, the subjects were more accurate in reporting two attributes from the same part of an object than they were in reporting attributes from different parts of an object. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that part-based attentional decrements occurred simultaneously with object-based attentional decrements. The results from Experiment 2 demonstrated that part-based attention is evident at the same time as objects are processed as coherent wholes. Our results imply that there is an attentional mechanism that can select either objects or their parts.     

Attending to the parts of a single object: part-based selection limitations

Studies of object-based attention have demonstrated poorer performance in dividing attention between two objects in a scene than in focusing attention on a single object. However, objects often are composed of several parts, and parts are central to theories of object recognition. Are parts also important for visual attention? That is, can attention be limited in the number of parts processed simultaneously? We addressed this question in four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants reported two attributes that appeared on the same part or on different parts of a single multipart object. Participants were more accurate in reporting the attributes on the same part than attributes on different parts. This part-based effect was not influenced by the spatial distance between the parts, ruling out a simple spatial attention interpretation of our results. A control study demonstrated that our spatial manipulation was sufficient to observe shifts of spatial attention. This study revealed an effect of spatial distance, indicating that our spatial manipulation was adequate for observing spatial attention. The absence of a distance effect in Experiments 1 and 2 suggests that part-based attention may not rely entirely on simple shifts of spatial attention. Finally, in Experiment 4 we found evidence for part-based attention, using stimuli controlled for the distance between the parts of an object. The results of these experiments indicate that visual attention can selectively process the parts of an object. We discuss the relationship between parts and objects and the locus of part-based attentional selection.