Attentional bias toward low-intensity stimuli: an explanation for the intensity dissociation between reaction time and temporal order judgment?

If two stimuli need different times to be processed, this difference should in principle be reflected both by response times (RT) and by judgments of their temporal order (TOJ). However, several dissociations have been reported between RT and TOJ, e.g., RT is more affected than TOJ when stimulus intensity decreases. One account for these dissociations is to assume differences in the allocation of attention induced by the two tasks. To test this hypothesis, different distributions of attention were induced in the present study between two stimulus positions (above and below fixation). Only bright stimuli appeared in one position and either bright or dim stimuli in the other. In the two RT experiments, participants had to respond to every stimulus appearing in one of the two positions. Reaction times to bright stimuli were faster when they appeared in the position where dim stimuli were likely to occur. This finding suggests that the allocation of attention was adapted to the asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli, not suggested by explicit instruction. In the two TOJ experiments, the temporal order of stimuli appearing in the two positions had to be judged. Although bright stimuli appearing at the bright-and-dim location were judged to be earlier, this effect was small and insignificant. Further, the intensity dissociation between RT and TOJ was insensitive to random vs blockwise presentations of intensities, therefore was not modified by attentional preferences. Thus, asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli has an impact on the allocation of attention, but only in the RT task. Therefore dissociations between TOJ and response times cannot be accounted for by an attentional bias in the TOJ task but probably by different use of temporal information in the two tasks.     

Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks

Visual stimuli are often processed more efficiently than accompanying stimuli in another modality. In line with this “visual dominance”, earlier studies on attentional switching showed a clear benefit for visual stimuli in a bimodal visual–auditory modality-switch paradigm that required spatial stimulus localization in the relevant modality. The present study aimed to examine the generality of this visual dominance effect. The modality appropriateness hypothesis proposes that stimuli in different modalities are differentially effectively processed depending on the task dimension, so that processing of visual stimuli is favored in the dimension of space, whereas processing auditory stimuli is favored in the dimension of time. In the present study, we examined this proposition by using a temporal duration judgment in a bimodal visual–auditory switching paradigm. Two experiments demonstrated that crossmodal interference (i.e., temporal stimulus congruence) was larger for visual stimuli than for auditory stimuli, suggesting auditory dominance when performing temporal judgment tasks. However, attention switch costs were larger for the auditory modality than for visual modality, indicating a dissociation of the mechanisms underlying crossmodal competition in stimulus processing and modality-specific biasing of attentional set.     

The influence of emotional stimuli on the oculomotor system: A review of the literature

In the past decade, more and more research has been investigating oculomotor behavior in relation to attentional selection of emotional stimuli. Whereas previous research on covert emotional attention demonstrates contradictory results, research on overt attention clearly shows the influence of emotional stimuli on attentional selection. The current review highlights studies that have used eye-movement behavior as the primary outcome measure in healthy populations and focusses on the evidence that emotional stimuli—in particular, threatening stimuli—affect temporal and spatial dynamics of oculomotor programming. The most prominent results from these studies indicate that attentional selection of threatening stimuli is under bottom-up control. Moreover, threatening stimuli seem to have the greatest impact on oculomotor behavior through biased processing via the magnocellular pathway. This is consistent with an evolutionary account of threat processing, which claims a pivotal role for a subcortical network including pulvinar, superior colliculus, and amygdala. Additionally, I suggest a neurobiological model that considers possible mechanisms by which emotional stimuli could affect oculomotor behavior. The present review confirms the relevance of eye-movement measurements in relation to researching emotion in order to elucidate processes involved in emotional modulation of visual and attentional selection.     

Facilitation of local information processing in the attentional blink as indexed by the shooting line illusion

Perception of the second of two rapidly sequential targets is impaired if the temporal lag between them is relatively short. This attentional blink (AB) is said to occur because the first target preoccupies attentional resources, leading to a shortage of attention for, and subsequent failure of judgement of, the second target. In the present study, we examined whether the attention which is preoccupied by the first target carries the common characteristic of spatial attention, that is local facilitation of information processing. To index the facilitation, we presented an attention-sensitive probe known as the shooting line illusion in which observers see a progressively drawn line from the attended end to the other. We found that illusory motion was perceived to emanate from the end where the first target was presented. This result demonstrates the inherently spatial nature of attention, even when it is defined by temporal and symbolic variables.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N = 135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N = 95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N?=?135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N?=?95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

Focal distraction: spatial shifts of attentional focus are not required for contingent capture

Contingent capture occurs when distractors that share the target's defining attribute capture attention and slow down target identification. This slowdown has been attributed to an involuntary attentional shift to the location of a pertinent distractor. The present study examined an additional source of delay: the time spent in processing pertinent distractors. In 7 experiments, distractors were presented at fixation, and targets were presented either at fixation or peripherally. Contingent capture invariably occurred when a salient distractor was presented within about 600 ms before the target, even when spatial shifts in attentional focus were ruled out. A 2-stage model is proposed in which stimuli must pass an input filter tuned to the target's defining attribute before gaining access to a high-level stage that is unavailable while a distractor is being processed.     

Somatosensory prior entry

The perceived timing of sensory events does not necessarily match the actual timing. In the present study, we investigated the effect of location of attention on the perceived timing of somatosensory stimuli. Participants judged the temporal order of two taps, delivered one to each hand, with taps presented at different elevations (upper and lower) on the opposing hands. The task was to discriminate the elevation of the tap presented first (or second). This vertical discrimination task was orthogonal to the horizontal attentional cuing manipulation, removing the response bias confound that has undermined earlier studies investigating the impact of attention on the perceived timing of sensory stimuli. We manipulated spatial attention either (1) exogenously (Experiment 1) in 13 participants, using brief taps to either the left or right hand, or (2) endogenously (Experiment 2) in 22 participants, using centrally presented symbolic cues. The results supported the hypothesis that attended stimuli are perceived more rapidly than unattended stimuli. This effect was larger when attention was exogenously manipulated. Previous research has demonstrated a similar effect for visual stimuli. The present study, which extends this result to somatosensory perception, indicates that the phenomenon may represent a more global feature of the perceptual system, which is possibly mediated by a common modality-independent mechanism.     

The effect of spatial organization of targets and distractors on the capacity to selectively memorize objects in visual short-term memory

We conducted a series of experiments to explore how the spatial configuration of objects influences the selection and the processing of these objects in a visual short-term memory task. We designed a new experiment in which participants had to memorize 4 targets presented among 4 distractors. Targets were cued during the presentation of distractor objects. Their locations varied according to 4 spatial configurations. From the first to the last configuration, the distance between targets’ locations was progressively increased. The results revealed a high capacity to select and memorize targets embedded among distractors even when targets were extremely distant from each other. This capacity is discussed in relation to the unitary conception of attention, models of split attention, and the competitive interaction model. Finally, we propose that the spatial dispersion of objects has different effects on attentional allocation and processing stages. Thus, when targets are extremely distant from each other, attentional allocation becomes more difficult while processing becomes easier. This finding implicates that these 2 aspects of attention need to be more clearly distinguished in future research.     

Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention?

Under certain circumstances, external stimuli will elicit an involuntary shift of spatial attention, referred to as attentional capture. According to the contingent involuntary orienting account (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), capture is conditioned by top-down factors that set attention to respond involuntarily to stimulus properties relevant to one's behavioral goals. Evidence for this comes from spatial cuing studies showing that a spatial cuing effect is observed only when cues have goal-relevant properties. Here, we examine alternative, decision-level explanations of the spatial cuing effect that attribute evidence of capture to postpresentation delays in the voluntary allocation of attention, rather than to on-line involuntary shifts in direct response to the cue. In three spatial cuing experiments, delayed-allocation accounts were tested by examining whether items at the cued location were preferentially processed. The experiments provide evidence that costs and benefits in spatial cuing experiments do reflect the on-line capture of attention. The implications of these results for models of attentional control are discussed.     

Better late than never: how onsets and offsets influence prior entry and exit

The three experiments presented in the paper examine visual prior entry (determining which of two stimuli appeared first) and prior exit (determining which of two stimuli disappeared first) effects with a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task. In addition to using onset and offset targets, the preceding cues also consisted of either onset or offset stimuli. Typical, and equivalent, prior entry effects were found when either onset or offset cues preceded the onset targets. Unexpectedly large prior exit effects where found with the offset targets, with offset cues producing greater capture effects than onset cues. These findings are consistent with the notion that more attention is allocated to searching the visual field when targets are more difficult to find. In addition, the results indicate that attentional control settings may be more likely to occur with more difficult searches. In addition, these findings demonstrate that TOJ tasks provide extremely precise measures of the allocation of attention and are very sensitive to a range of task manipulations.     

Spatial attention is necessary for object-based attention: Evidence from temporal-order judgments

Attentional selection is a dynamic process that relies on multiple types of representations. That object representations contribute to attentional selection has been known for decades; however, most evidence for this contribution has been gleaned from studies that have relied on various forms of spatial cueing (some endogenous and some exogenous). It has thus remained unclear whether object-based attentional selection is a direct result of spatial cuing, or whether it still emerges without any spatial marker. Here we used a novel method—the temporal-order judgment (TOJ)—to examine whether object-based guidance emerges in the absence of spatial cuing. Participants were presented with two rectangles oriented either horizontally or vertically. Following a 150-ms preview time, two target stimuli were presented on the same or on different objects, and participants were asked to report which of the two stimuli had appeared first. The targets consisted of stimuli that formed a percept of a “hole” or a “hill.” First, we demonstrated that the “hill” target was indeed processed faster, as evidenced by a positive perceived simultaneity (PSS) measure. We then demonstrated that if two targets appeared with equal probabilities on the same and on different objects, the PSS values, although positive, were not modulated by the objects. In a subsequent set of experiments, we showed that objects can modulate attentional allocation—however, only when they are biased by a spatial (endogenous) cue. In other words, in the absence of a spatial cue or bias, object representations do not guide attentional selection. In addition to providing new constraints for theories of object-based attentional guidance, these experiments introduce a novel paradigm for measuring object-based attentional effects.     

Attentional resolution

Attention can enhance selectively the visual information processing of particular locations or objects. Recent studies have shown that this enhancement has limited spatial resolution, the smallest regions that can be isolated by attention are much coarser than the smallest details that can be resolved by vision. Multiple similar objects spaced more finely than the limit of attentional resolution cannot be individuated for further processing and can only be perceived as a grouped texture. As a result, at any given time, only part of the spatial and temporal information registered by the early sensory systems is available to conscious perception. It is likely that attentional resolution is limited at a stage beyond V1 and that it has a finer grain in the lower visual field than in the upper field. The spatial aperture of attention is elongated along the radial axis relative to fixation. The briefest temporal window of attention is also much broader than visual temporal resolution. Many perceptual phenomena related to rapid serial visual presentation may reflect the limited temporal resolution of attention.     

How to keep attention from straying: Get engaged!

Previous research has suggested that the involuntary allocation of spatial attention to salient, irrelevant stimuli (i.e., attentional capture) is prevented when attention is in a focused state (e.g., Yantis & Jonides, 1990). Recent work has suggested that although focused attention may be necessary to prevent attentional capture by irrelevant stimuli, it is not sufficient (e.g., Folk, Leber, & Egeth, 2002). The present experiments provide evidence that attentional engagement, rather than attentional focusing, prevents capture. Observers performed a rapid serial visual presentation task in which they were asked to identify a target letter defined by color. Peripheral distractors that shared the color of the target produced evidence of attentional capture. This effect was completely eliminated, however, when the peripheral distractor was preceded by a central distractor designed to engage attention on the stream. It is concluded that attentional engagement serves to lock out capture by irrelevant, salient stimuli.     

The role of selective attention in visual awareness of stimulus features: Electrophysiological studies

Attention and awareness are closely related, but the nature of their relationship is unclear. The present study explores the timing and temporal evolution of their interaction with event-related potentials. The participants attended to specific conjunctions of spatial frequency and orientation in masked (unaware) and unmasked (aware) visual stimuli. A correlate of awareness appeared 100-200 msec from stimulus onset similarly to both attended and unattended features. Selection negativity (SN), a correlate of attentional selection, emerged in response to both masked and unmasked stimuli after 200 msec. This double dissociation between correlates of awareness and SN suggests that the electrophysiological processes associated with feature-based attentional selection and visual awareness of features can be dissociated from each other at early stages of processing. In a passive task, requiring no attention to the stimuli, early electrophysiological responses (before 200 msec) related to awareness were attenuated, suggesting that focal attention modulates visual awareness earlier than does selective feature-based attention.     

Impaired temporal discrimination within the attentional blink

Yeshurun and Levy (2003) reported that temporal discrimination performance of a visual stimulus benefits when spatial attention is oriented away from its location. In the present study, we investigated whether this negative influence of attention on temporal discrimination performance is restricted to transient spatial attention or might generalize to other paradigms of attention. We employed the attentional blink (AB) paradigm and required either a spatial (Experiment 1) or a temporal discrimination task (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments revealed a performance decrement if attention was temporally unavailable during the AB and a recovery with increasing attentional availability. Thus, contrary to the results of Yeshurun and Levy, the absence of attention decreased temporal discrimination performance in this paradigm. We hypothesize that attention which operates at different processing levels might exert differential effects on temporal stimulus processing.     

The role of stimulus predictability in the allocation of attentional resources: an eye-tracking study

By allocating less attention to predictable events we are able to focus on novel, unpredictable and unexpected events that require more extensive processing. This strategy should result in improved performance by optimizing the use of brain’s limited resources. Participants’ task was to look at two types of stimuli presented simultaneously at the opposite sides of a computer screen: “static” stimuli, i.e. emotionally neutral photographs; and “dynamic” stimuli, i.e. video clips presenting a moving dot. The dot moved along a predictable, semi-predictable or random trajectory. This was followed by a memory test of the static stimuli. Participants spent more time looking at the dynamic stimuli when its trajectory was less predictable. Additionally, participants who readily adjusted their dwell time allocation to the dot trajectory performed better in the memory test, as demonstrated by a positive correlation between memory test sensitivity and the rate of eye movement patterns adjustment to stimulus predictability. This suggests that people adjust gaze duration to stimulus predictability and that doing so optimizes attentional resource allocation and improves performance. However, study design did not allow to distinguish between spatial and temporal predictability, so it is impossible to estimate the impact of each type of predictability specifically.     

Transient attention degrades perceived apparent motion

Transient spatial attention refers to the automatic selection of a location that is driven by the stimulus rather than a voluntary decision. Apparent motion is an illusory motion created by stationary stimuli that are presented successively at different locations. In this study we explored the effects of transient attention on apparent motion. The motion target presentation was preceded by either valid attentional cues that attract attention to the target location in advance (experiments 1-4), neutral cues that do not indicate a location (experiments 1, 3, and 4), or invalid cues that direct attention to a non-target location (experiment 2). Valid attentional cues usually improve performance in various tasks. Here, however, an attentional impairment was found. Observers' ability to discriminate the direction of motion diminished at the cued location. Analogous results were obtained regardless of cue type: singleton cue (experiment 1), central non-informative cue (experiment 2), or abrupt onset cue (experiment 3). Experiment 4 further demonstrated that reversed apparent motion is less likely with attention. This seemingly counterintuitive attentional degradation of perceived apparent motion is consistent with several recent findings, and together they suggest that transient attention facilitates spatial segregation and temporal integration but impairs spatial integration and temporal segregation.     

Attention is biased to near surfaces

It is thought that attention is allocated to figural items over adjacent ground stimuli. It is unclear which attribute of figures drives any previously observed attentional effects (e.g., nearness or shapedness). Moreover, it is unclear whether previous attentional effects are automatic or strategy driven. In the present series of experiments, we tested whether attention is allocated to the nearer of two surfaces under condition where near/far was not confounded with shaped/shapelessness. Using a temporal order judgment paradigm, in the first experiment, we showed that attention is allocated to the nearer of two surfaces. Furthermore, by using the stimuli themselves as the temporal order probe in Experiment 2, we found that this effect is independent of previous attentional allocation across the visual field. A third experiment ruled out the possibility that lateral inhibition by the pretarget backdrop was responsible for attentional bias toward near surfaces. Overall, our results converge to show that near surfaces attract attention.     

Rapid learning of rapid temporal contexts

In an information-rich visual world and with limited attentional resources, what visual cues allow humans to efficiently navigate their environment? One key environmental characteristic is that stimuli rarely appear in isolation and typically coincide with other specific items that provide cues regarding where and when to guide our attention. Indeed, a predictive spatial context of distractors can enhance the deployment of attention to a target location (Chun &; Jiang, 1998). However, can a predictive, temporal sequence of distractors, which do not enter working memory, cue when to allocate attention? Previous studies addressing this question have employed relatively long (?500 msec/item) stimulus exposure durations. Thus, this temporal cuing may require extensive processing of the distractors. Here, we show that a rapidly presented (～100 msec/item), predictive, temporal context, where stimuli undergo only preliminary analysis, can facilitate the deployment of attention to a specific temporal location.