Configural and contextual prioritization in object-based attention

When attention is directed to a location within an object, other locations within that object also enjoy an attentional advantage. Recently we demonstrated that this object-based advantage is mediated by increased attentional priority assigned to locations within an already attended object and not to early sensory enhancement due to the "spread" of attention within the attended object (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002). At least two factors might contribute to the assignment of attentional priority, one related to the configuration of objects in a scene and the other related to the probability of target appearance in each location imposed by task contingencies. We investigated the relative contribution of these factors by cuing one end of one of a pair of rectangles; a subsequent target appeared most often in the cued location. We manipulated attentional priority setting by varying (1) the probability that a target would appear in each of two uncued locations and (2) the cue to target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). On invalidly cued trials, the target appeared in the high-probability location (defined by an absolute spatial location, e.g., upper right) 83% of the time and in the low-probability location (e.g., lower left) 17% of the time. In both conditions, uncued targets appeared in the cued object half the time and in the uncued object half the time. At short SOAs, the same-object and probability effects were approximately additive. However, at longer SOAs, the same-object effects disappeared, and reaction times depended exclusively on location probability. These results suggest that observers adopt an implicit configural scanning strategy (in which unattended locations within an attended object have high priority) or an implicit contextual scanning strategy (in which objectively high-probability locations have high priority) depending on task contingencies and the amount of time that is available to deploy attention.     

The attentional window configures to object and surface boundaries

Attention can select items based on location or features. Belopolsky and colleagues posited the attentional window hypothesis, which theorized that spatial and featural selection interact such that featural selection occurs within a “window” of spatial selection. Kerzel and colleagues recently found that the attentional window can take complex shapes, but cannot configure around non-contiguous locations. The current experiments investigated whether perceptual grouping cues, which produce perceptual objects or surfaces, enable the attentional window to configure around non-contiguous locations. Using the additional singleton paradigm, we reasoned that observers (1) would be slowed by a colour singleton distractor that appears within the observers’ attentional window and (2) would be unaffected by distractors that do not appear within the attentional window. In separate blocks of trials, a target appeared upon one of two objects. Observers were cued to the relevant surface, and we asked if responses were affected by distractors on the cued task-relevant surface, and on the uncued irrelevant surface. Colour singleton distractors slowed responses when they appeared on the cued surface, even when those locations were non-contiguous locations. Distractors on the irrelevant surface did not affect responses. The results support a highly adaptable attentional window that is configurable to the surfaces and boundaries established by intermediate-level vision.     

Spatial distribution of attentional bias in visuo-spatial working memory following multiple cues

When attention is focused on one location, its spatial distribution depends on many factors, such as the distance between the attended location and the target location, the presence of visual meridians in between them, and the way, endogenous or exogenous, by which attention is oriented. However, it is not well known how attention distributes when more than one location is endogenously or exogenously cued, which was the focus of the current study. Furthermore, the distribution of attention has been manly investigated in perception. In the present study we faced this issue from a different perspective, by examining the spatial distribution of the attentional bias in visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM), when attention is oriented either exogenously or endogenously, i.e., after two peripheral vs. central symbolic cues (also manipulating cue–target predictability). Results indicated a systematic difference between endogenous and exogenous attention regarding the distribution of the attentional bias over VSWM. In fact, attentional bias following endogenous cues was affected by the presence of visual meridians and by the split of the attentional focus, converging in a unipolar attentional distribution, independently of cue–target predictability. On the other hand, when pulled by exogenous cues, attention distributed uni-modally or multi-modally depending on the distance between the cued locations, with larger effects for highly predictive cues. Results are discussed in terms of space-based, object-based and perceptual grouping mechanisms.     

Spatial cuing in a stereoscopic display: Evidence for a “depth-aware” attentional focus

Two experiments were conducted to explore whether attentional selection occurs in depth, or whether attentional focus is “depth blind,” as suggested by Ghiradelli and Folk (1996). In Experiment 1, observers viewed stereoscopic displays in which one of four spatial locations was cued. Two of the locations were at a near-depth location and two were at a far-depth location, and a single target was presented along with three distractors. The results indicated a larger cost in reaction time for switching attention inx,y and depth than inx,y alone, supporting a “depth-aware” attentional spotlight. In Experiment 2, no distractors were present, similar to the displays used by Ghiradelli and Folk. In this experiment, no effect for switching attention in depth was found, indicating that the selectivity of attention in depth depends on the perceptual load imposed on observers by the tasks and displays.     

Covert visual orienting: Hemifield-activation can be mimicked by zoom lens and midlocation placement strategies

How is attention distributed over visual space when an observer expects a target to occur at one of several possible locations? Two experiments sought to understand the source of the conflict between studies leading to the notions of hemifield activation (Hughes and Zimba 1985) and attentional gradients (Downing and Pinker 1985; Shulman et al. 1985, 1986). Subjects were cued to attend one of the 4 corners of an imaginary square centered at fixation, allowing comparison of uncued locations in the cued and uncued hemifields. In one experiment marking of the 4 locations was varied to determine if providing a ‘target’ for attention is necessary to obtain within-hemifield gradients. RT was faster at the cued location than at the three uncued locations which had equivalent latencies, a pattern that was unaffected by marking of the potential target locations. This result, which is consistent with the notion of a gradient around the attended location is a strong disconfirmation of the hemifield activation hypothesis. The second experiment demonstrated that an unusual procedure for presenting the probe stimuli in Hughes and Zimba (1985) is at least partially responsible for their evidence for uniform hemifield activation. It is proposed that visual attention is directed to visuo-spatial channels with fixed structural properties, and that when attention to two locations is desired, the subject may attend a spatial channel located between them.     

Object-based attention: sensory modulation or priority setting?

The detection of an invalidly cued target is faster when it appears within a cued object than when it appears in an uncued object equally distant from the cued location; this is a manifestation of object based attention. Five experiments are reported in which it was investigated whether early sensory enhancement (in which attention "spreads" within an attended object but stops at its borders) or a later attentional prioritization mechanism best accounts for these effects. In Experiments 1-4, subjects identified a centrally located target with a buttonpress while attempting to ignore flanking distractors that were mapped to either a compatible or an incompatible response. The flankers appeared either within the object occupied by the target or in a different object but at the same distance from the target. The well-known effect of distance between the target and the flankers on the magnitude of the compatibility effect was replicated. However, whether the target and the flankers were in the same or different objects had no effect on the magnitude of the compatibility effect. In Experiment 5, when attention could not be narrowly focused in advance, object-based modulation of the flanker effect was observed. These results suggest that object-based selection may reflect an object-specific attentional prioritization strategy, rather than object-based attentional modulation of an early sensory representation.     

Effects of relevant and irrelevant color singletons on inhibition of return and attentional capture

We tested whether color singletons lead to saccadic and manual inhibition of return (IOR; i.e., slower responses at cued locations) and whether IOR depended on the relevance of the color singletons. The target display was preceded by a nonpredictive cue display. In three experiments, half of the cues were response-relevant, because participants had to perform a discrimination task at the cued location. With the exception of Experiment 2, none of the cue colors matched the target color. We observed saccadic IOR after color singletons, which was greater for slow than for fast responses. Furthermore, when the relevant cue color matched the target color, we observed attentional capture (i.e., faster responses at cued locations) with rapid responses, but IOR with slower responses, which provides evidence for attentional deallocation. When the cue display was completely response-irrelevant in two additional experiments, we did not find evidence for IOR. Instead, we found attentional capture when the cue color matched the target color. Also, attentional capture was greater for rapid responses and with short cue–target intervals. Thus, IOR emerges when cues are relevant and do not match the target color, whereas attentional capture emerges with relevant and irrelevant cues that match the target color.     

Configural representations in spatial working memory: modulation by perceptual segregation and voluntary attention

In what form are multiple spatial locations represented in working memory? The present study revealed that people often maintain the configural properties (interitem relationships) of visuospatial stimuli even when this information is explicitly task-irrelevant. However, the results also indicated that the voluntary allocation of selective attention prior to stimulus presentation, as well as feature-based perceptual segregation of relevant from irrelevant stimuli, can eliminate the influence of stimulus configuration on location-change detection performance. In contrast, voluntary attention cued to the relevant target location following presentation of the stimulus array failed to attenuate these influences. Thus, whereas voluntary selective attention can isolate or prevent the encoding of irrelevant stimulus locations and configural properties, people, perhaps due to limitations in attentional resources, reliably fail to isolate or suppress configural representations that have been encoded into working memory.     

Covert orienting to central visual cues and sport practice relations in the development of visual attention.

This study examines the development of controlled covert orienting of visual attention, according to the age and the level of performance of tennis players. Practicers and nonpracticers age 13, 16, and 25 participated in a covert orienting task. On each trial, subjects responded to a target which appeared in one of four locations arrayed horizontally across the display. Three central cues were used: neutral, the cue did not specify in which location the target would appear; valid, the target was present in the cued location on 80% of the trials; invalid, the target was present in one of the uncued locations on the remaining 20% of the trials. The results showed that (1) practicers were not faster than nonpracticers in processing the signals, (2) observers of all ages oriented attention voluntarily to the cued locations, (3) central cues had a smaller effect on older and practiced subjects, and (4) developmental and sport practice factors had similar effects on orienting efficiency. The implications of these findings for theories of attentional development are discussed.     

Modulation of the Spatial Extent of the Attentional Focus in High-level Volleyball Players

In this study, we explored the ability of first league professional volleyball players to modulate the allocation of attentional resources in the visual space by adapting the size of the attentional focus. Like Castiello and Umilta (1990), we employed an experimental procedure that is a variation of Posner's (1980) paradigm for exploring covert orienting of visuospatial attention. In a signalled reaction time task, a peripheral cue of varying size was presented unilaterally or bilaterally of a central fixation point, followed by a target at different stimulus onset asynchronies. The target could occur validly inside the cue or invalidly outside it with varying spatial relation to its boundary. Our results suggest that volleyball players are better able than controls to modulate the distribution of attentional resources within and around peripherally cued areas. Moreover, volleyball players seem to be able to flexibly adapt the gradient of attentional resources around the cued area, as would be expected from their sport practice.     

A developmental study of covert orienting to peripheral visual cues

Observers aged 6, 8, and 20 years participated in a speeded classification task designed to measure covert shifts of visual attention. On each trial observers responded to a target which appeared in one of three locations arrayed horizontally across the display. Three prestimulus cues were employed: neutral (the cue was present in all three possible target locations), unpredictable (the cue was present in the target location on a random basis), and predictable (the cue was present in the target location on 80% of the trials). There were four developmental findings: (1) Observers of all ages oriented attention automatically to the cued locations, (2) children processed targets in non-cued locations more slowly than adults, (3) only adults took advantage of the predictability of the cue, and (4) all age groups provided evidence that strategic orienting competes with response priming for cognitive resources. The implications of these findings for theories of attentional development are discussed.     

Attentional cues in real scenes, saccadic targeting, and Bayesian priors

Performance finding a target improves when artificial cues direct covert attention to the target's probable location or locations, but how do predictive cues help observers search for objects in real scenes? Controlling for target detectability and retinal eccentricity, we recorded observers' first saccades during search for objects that appeared in expected and unexpected locations within real scenes. As has been found with synthetic images and cues, accuracy of first saccades was significantly higher when the target appeared at an expected location rather than an unexpected location. Observers' saccades with target-absent images make it possible to distinguish two mechanisms that might mediate this effect: limited attentional resources versus differential weighting of information (Bayesian priors). Endpoints of first saccades in target-absent images were significantly closer to the expected than the unexpected locations, a result consistent with the differential-weighting model and inconsistent with limited resources being the sole mechanism underlying the effect.     

Time-Course of Sensitivity Changes as Attention Shifts to an Unpredictable Location

Shifting visual attention is often described as analogous to a spotlight moving through empty space between locations. In the present experiment, a peripheral precue summoned attention to an initial location, and 200 ms later a second peripheral cue appeared beside one of two possible second locations, each 14° away from the initial location. The target was twice as likely to appear at the location that had been indicated by the immediately preceding cue as at the location that had been previously cued or that would be cued. Fine-grained temporal analyses indicated that, as attention was shifted, sensitivity to information at the second location gradually increased while sensitivity at the first location simultaneously decreased. Average sensitivity over the two locations during the shift remained significantly greater than average sensitivity immediately following the initial precue. In contrast, an attentional “spotlight” moving from the first to the second location would produce a decrease in average sensitivity to its initial level while the spotlight was between locations.     

Object-based control of attention is sensitive to recent experience

How is attention guided by past experience? In visual search, numerous studies have shown that recent trials influence responses to the current trial. Repeating features such as color, shape, or location of a target facilitates performance. Here we examine whether recent experience also modulates a more abstract dimension of attentional control, object-based and location-based control. Participants performed a cued target discrimination task with stimuli presented on 2 rectangles. Response times to targets appearing in an uncued location on a cued rectangle were faster than to targets on the uncued rectangle, demonstrating an object-based attentional benefit. We investigated the object-based benefit on the current trial contingent on the cue-target relationship on the previous trial. The object-based benefit was significant only when the cued object contained the target on the previous trial, not when the uncued object contained the target. This effect of recent experience was not due to either the repetition of spatial cue-target location or the repetition of the response, but to adaptation to contingencies in the environment. Our results suggest a unifying view of attentional control that spans the concrete dimensions of control (e.g., determining the relative importance of red vs. blue) to the abstract (determining the relative importance of objects vs. locations in space). Attention closely tracks the short time scale structure of the environment and automatically adapts to optimize performance to this structure.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus “masking” IOR.     

Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect

In Experiment 1, subjects responded with a buttonpress to a target letter O embedded in a pair of vertical lines. A flanker control method was used to constrain the location and size of the initial attentional focus. The target could appear in one of five locations within a particular horizontal range. There were five ranges, varying from 1.7° to 8.6° in visual angle. Reaction time measures to the target exhibited V-shaped curves, with the lowest reaction time corresponding to the location of the initial focus of attention. The slopes of the curves decreased monotonically with target ranges. Reaction time measures at the extreme locations of the five ranges showed no significant increase with eccentricity, indicating that the influence of retinal sensitivity is negligible in this identification task as compared with the influence of other, presumably attentional, processes. Experiment 2 indicated that within a given range the slopes of the reaction time curves are independent of the number of locations probed. Additional evidence for the attentional range effect was given in Experiments 3 and 4, in which the tasks were detection of an asterisk both with and without flanking vertical lines and identification of the letter O with and without flanking lines. These results do not conform to predictions of a shifting focus theory of attention with the velocity of the focus assumed to be constant, or to the predictions of a gradient theory with total processing capacity assumed to be fixed.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus "masking" IOR.     

Inhibition of return: Unraveling a paradox

Although inhibition of return (IOR) is widely believed to aid search by discouraging reexamination of previously inspected locations, its impact actually appears to decline as the number of target locations increases. We test three possible reasons for this paradoxical result: (1) IOR is capacity-limited, (2) IOR is sensitive to subtle changes in target location probability, and (3) IOR decays with distance from a previously attended location. The present investigation provides strong support for the third explanation, indicating that a gradient of inhibition is centered on previously attended locations. We note that this inhibitory gradient resolves a paradox in the literature. Moreover, we speculate that the inhibitory gradient may reflect a “similarity space” within which target locations near to the cue are tagged with inhibition due to their similarity to the cued location. The farther the target location is away, the less similar it is to the cued location, and thus the less inhibition it receives.     

Movement versus focusing of visual attention

In two experiments, we investigated the idea that attention moves through visual space in an analog fashion. The spatial distribution of attention was determined by presenting a spatially informative cue and comparing reaction times to targets at cued and uncued locations as a function of the interval from cue onset to target onset (SOA). Facilitation and inhibition were measured by reference to a neutral condition in which the cue provided no spatial information. In the first experiment, we used a central cue (an arrow), and in the second experiment, we used a peripheral cue (a 50-msec flash). With central cue, the facilitatory effects of the cuing were initially equal for all locations on the indicated side of the display, and then decreased for all locations except the one that had been specifically cued. These results are interpreted as being more consistent with "focusing" of an initially broad "beam" of attention than with "movement" of a narrow beam from fixation to the cued location. With peripheral cues, strong facilitation specific to the cued location was manifest as early as 50 msec after cue onset, but this effect decreased with increasing SOA. Inhibition for uncued locations increased with increasing SOA at a rate that generally reflected their distance from the cued location. Taken together, these results reveal important differences between peripheral and central cues in the generation of attentional selectivity, not just in the time-course of events, but also in the nature of the processes involved.     

Attentional capture within and between objects

The present study addressed the question whether attentional capture by abrupt onsets is affected by object-like properties of the stimulus field. Observers searched for a target circle at one of four ends of two solid rectangles. In the focused attention condition the location of the upcoming target was cued by means of a central arrowhead, whereas in the divided attention condition, the target location was not cued. Irrelevant abrupt onsets could appear either within the attended or within the non-attended object. The results showed that in the focused attention condition, onsets ceased to capture attention irrespective of whether the onset appeared within an attended object or within a non-attended object.