Suppression in object-based attention

This study examines suppression in object-based attention in three experiments using an object-based attention task similar to 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(2), 161–177. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161) with the addition of a distractor. In Experiment 1 participants identified a target object at one of four ends of two rectangles. The target location was validly cued on 72% of trials. The remaining 28% were located on the same or a different object. Sixty-eight percent of trials also included a distractor on one of the two objects. Experiment 1 failed to show suppression when a distractor was present, but did demonstrate the spread of attention across the attended object when no distractor was present. Experiment 2 added a mask to the paradigm to make the task more difficult and engage suppression. When suppression was engaged in the task, data showed suppression on the unattended (different) object, but not on the attended (same) object. Experiment 3 replicated findings from Experiment 1 and 2 using a within participants design. Findings are discussed in relation to the role of suppression in visual selective attention.     

Interference between object-based attention and object-based memory

Research has shown that there are at least two kinds of visual selective attention: location based and object based. In the present study, we sought to determine the locus of spatially invariant object-based selection using a dual-task paradigm. In four experiments, observers performed an attention task (object feature report or visual search) with a concurrent memory task (object memory or spatial memory). Object memory was interfered with more by a concurrent object-based attention task than by a concurrent location-based attention task. However, this interference pattern was reversed for spatial memory, with greater interference by a location-based attention task than by an object-based attention task. These findings suggest that object-based attention and locationbased attention are functionally dissociable and that some forms of object-based selection operate within visual short-term memory.     

Hemispheric performance in object-based attention

The goal of the present study was to investigate whether object-based attention effects differ across the cerebral hemispheres. Previous research has suggested that object-based attention is preferentially lateralized to the left hemisphere (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994; Egly, Rafal, Driver, & Starrveveld, 1994). However, work by Vecera (1994) has suggested that these previous studies may have failed to obtain a pure measure of object-based attention. The present study applied modified versions of Duncan's (1984) seminal object-based attention paradigm. Subjects were typically presented with one target object to a single visual field (one-object display), two target objects to the same visual field (two-object unilateral display), or two target objects to different visual fields (two-object bilateral display). In all three experiments, response accuracy was higher for the one-object displays than for the two-object displays. Most important, this object-based cost was especially severe when selection of two target elements was isolated to the right visual field (left hemisphere). We confirmed that this effect was specific to object-based attention in three different ways: Experiment 1 manipulated stimulus distance, as recommended by Vecera; Experiment 2 ensured that target selection was based on nonspatial attributes; and Experiment 3 used overlapping displays, as in Duncan (1984). Collectively, the data are in accord with previous conclusions that object-based attention is a specialized form of orienting subserved by lateralized cortical brain mechanisms. However, contrary to previous research, it appears that it is the right hemisphere, and not the left hemisphere, that is preferentially biased for committing object-based attention to elements in the visual environment.     

Overt and covert object-based attention

To examine the role of perceptual object representations in the control of eye movements and attention, a pair of experiments adapted the object-cuing paradigm of Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994) to require eye movements. Displays were pairs of adjacent rectangles, each containing two characters. Observers were asked to make a speeded judgment of a target character’s orientation, and a cue was provided prior to target/distractor onset to indicate the target’s likely location. Gaze-contingent presentation of target and distractors was used to demand overt scanning of displays. Eye movements during task performance evinced two forms of object-based effects. First, saccades following fixation on an invalidly cued item were more likely to be made within the cued rectangle than between rectangles. Second, saccades within the cued rectangle were preceded by shorter dwell times than saccades between rectangles. Extrafoveal processing of stimuli within the cued rectangle, however, was not facilitated, suggesting that covert attention was not allocated more densely within the cued than within the uncued object.     

无觉知条件下的客体注意效应

采用双矩形范式变式考察在对客体无觉知的条件下的客体注意效应,共包括两个实验：实验一考察对完整矩形客体无觉知的条件下能否出现客体注意效应,发现在完整矩形客体不可见的情况下依然出现了客体注意效应。实验二考察对虚拟矩形客体无觉知的情况下是否能够出现客体注意效应,发现在虚拟矩形客体不可见的情况下也能够出现客体注意效应。研究结果表明客体注意效应在无觉知条件下依然存在,为注意与觉知在功能上相互分离的观点提供了新的证据。     

无觉知条件下的客体注意效应

采用双矩形范式变式考察在对客体无觉知的条件下的客体注意效应,共包括两个实验：实验一考察对完整矩形客体无觉知的条件下能否出现客体注意效应,发现在完整矩形客体不可见的情况下依然出现了客体注意效应。实验二考察对虚拟矩形客体无觉知的情况下是否能够出现客体注意效应,发现在虚拟矩形客体不可见的情况下也能够出现客体注意效应。研究结果表明客体注意效应在无觉知条件下依然存在,为注意与觉知在功能上相互分离的观点提供了新的证据。     

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.     

Reversal of object-based benefits in visual attention

In divided-attention tasks, observers must make speeded (or near threshold accuracy) judgements concerning two target features in a display. Typically, when the two features belong to the same object they are more rapidly judged than when they belong to separate objects, a pattern of findings referred to here as a “same-object benefit”. However, we note here that many of these studies share common features, in particular the use of pre-exposed, outline, and/or overlapping objects, and their findings may not generalize to other types of display. Building substantially on previous work by Davis, Welch, Holmes, and Shepherd (2001), we show in four new studies that once these features are not present in a divided-attention task, no same-object benefits are reported. Rather we now find “same-object costs”, where features belonging to a single object are less rapidly judged than features belonging to separate objects.     

Central-cue discriminability modulates object-based attention by influencing spatial attention

The role of central-cue discriminability in modulating object-based effects was examined using Egly, Driver, and Rafal's (1994) "double-rectangle" spatial cueing paradigm. Based on the attentional focusing hypothesis (Goldsmith & Yeari, 2003), we hypothesized that highly discriminable central-arrow cues would be processed with attention spread across the two rectangles (potential target locations), thereby strengthening the perceptual representation of these objects so that they influence the subsequent endogenous deployment of attention, yielding object-based effects. By contrast, less discriminable central-arrow cues should induce a more narrow attentional focus to the center of the display, thereby weakening the rectangle object representations so that they no longer influence the subsequent attentional deployment. Central-arrow-cue discriminability was manipulated by size and luminance contrast. The results supported the predictions, reinforcing the attentional focusing hypothesis and highlighting the need to consider central-cue discriminability when designing experiments and in comparing experimental results.     

Space- and object-based attention depend on motor intention

The authors investigated the impact of different motor demands on space- and object-based attention allocation. Responses to targets were either lifting a finger, or pointing to the target, or grasping a clay object placed on the target location. Reaction times and movement times were recorded to assess covert and overt attention, respectively. Both reaction times and movement times showed more space-based attention for pointing than for finger lifting and more object-based attention for grasping than for pointing. That result supports the view that visual selectivity is tuned to specific motor intentions (H. Bekkering & F. W. Neggers, 2002) and illustrates the tight coupling of perception and action.     

Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention

Earlier studies have shown that the spatial Stroop effect systematically decreases when a peripheral precue is presented at the same location as the target, compared to an uncued location condition. In this study, two experiments were conducted to explore whether the cueing modulation of spatial Stroop is object based and/or space based. In Experiment 1, we found evidence favouring the view that the cueing modulation of the spatial Stroop effect is entirely object based, as no differences were found in conflict reduction for the same-location and same-object conditions. In Experiment 2, the cue was predictive, and a similar object-based modulation of spatial Stroop was still observed. However, the direction of such modulation was affected by the rectangles' orientation. Overall, the pattern of results obtained favours the object-integration (Lupiáñez & Milliken, 1999; Lupiáñez, Milliken, Solano, Weaver, & Tipper, 2001) and referential-coding accounts (Danziger, Kingstone, & Ward, 2001) and seems to provide evidence against the attention-shift account (Rubichi, Nicoletti, Iani, & Umilta, 1997; Stoffer, 1991).     

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.     

基于物体的注意对Simon效应的调节

本研究采用双长方形框范式的变式将注意分离为基于空间和基于物体的注意后,探讨了注意对Simon效应的调节是否由基于物体的注意引起。结果发现,在长方形框水平排列时在基于物体的注意条件下Simon效应增大,而在长方形框垂直排列时在基于物体的注意条件下Simon效应没有显著变化。这表明,在长方形框水平排列时基于物体的注意可以对Simon 效应进行调节。实验结果部分支持了动态版的参照编码假设和物体文件整合假设。     

The impact of monetary stimuli on object-based attention

Previous research has implied that monetary reward to target location (a reward for spatial properties) can affect object-based attention, but no study has directly investigated the influence of monetary objects (a reward for object properties) on object-based attention. Thus, it is unclear whether and how monetary objects can affect object-based attention. To experimentally investigate this problem, this study adapted the well-established two-rectangle paradigm. In Experiment 1, either two 100-yuan notes or two 1-yuan notes were presented to participants. We found an object-based effect with faster responses to targets at an uncued position on the cued object compared to those at an equidistant position on the uncued object; the effect was similar in 100-yuan and 1-yuan note trials. In Experiment 2, two notes (one 100-yuan and one 1-yuan) were simultaneously presented to participants, and cue location (100-yuan, 1-yuan) was manipulated. We found a greater object-based effect when the cue appeared on the 100-yuan note than on the 1-yuan note. These results suggest that the rewarding property of objects can affect object-based attention by means of altering object salience.     

Bindings in working memory: The role of object-based attention

Over the past decade, it has been debated whether retaining bindings in working memory (WM) requires more attention than retaining constituent features, focusing on domain-general attention and space-based attention. Recently, we proposed that retaining bindings in WM needs more object-based attention than retaining constituent features (Shen, Huang, & Gao, 2015, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, doi: 10.1037/xhp0000018). However, only unitized visual bindings were examined; to establish the role of object-based attention in retaining bindings in WM, more emperical evidence is required. We tested 4 new bindings that had been suggested requiring no more attention than the constituent features in the WM maintenance phase: The two constituent features of binding were stored in different WM modules (cross-module binding, Experiment 1), from auditory and visual modalities (cross-modal binding, Experiment 2), or temporally (cross-time binding, Experiments 3) or spatially (cross-space binding, Experiments 4–6) separated. In the critical condition, we added a secondary object feature-report task during the delay interval of the change-detection task, such that the secondary task competed for object-based attention with the to-be-memorized stimuli. If more object-based attention is required for retaining bindings than for retaining constituent features, the secondary task should impair the binding performance to a larger degree relative to the performance of constituent features. Indeed, Experiments 1–6 consistently revealed a significantly larger impairment for bindings than for the constituent features, suggesting that object-based attention plays a pivotal role in retaining bindings in WM.     

On the spatial extent of attention in object-based visual selection

A new test was devised to avoid previous confounds in measures of object-based limits on divided visual attention. The distinction between objects was manipulated across a wide spatial extent. Target elements appeared on the same object only when far apart, and appeared close only when on different objects, so that object effects could not be reduced to spatial effects, nor vice versa. Subjects judged whether two odd elements within a display of two dashed lines were the same or different. They performed better when the target elements were far apart on a common line rather than on two distinct lines, even though the latter arrangement was more likely. Thus, nonstrategic object-based limits on divided attention can arise even across large distances. However, when subjects were precued to expect targets in a narrow region of the display, the object effect was eliminated, implying that object-based selection may only operate within spatially attended regions.     

Crossmodal object-based attention: auditory objects affect visual processing

According to the object-based view, visual attention can be deployed to "objects" or perceptual units, regardless of spatial locations. Recently, however, the notion of object has also been extended to the auditory domain, with some authors suggesting possible interactions between visual and auditory objects. Here we show that task-irrelevant auditory objects may affect the deployment of visual attention, providing evidence that crossmodal links can also occur at an object-based level. Hence, in addition to the well documented control of visual objects over what we hear, our findings demonstrate that, in some cases, auditory objects can affect visual processing.     

Rapid, object-based learning in the deployment of transient attention.

We show that transient attention summoned by an exogenous cue shows rapid learning of the relationship between the cue and a subsequent target in a discrimination task. In experiment 1, performance was unaffected when a target always appeared in the same position on a large cue, but was degraded when the target could appear anywhere within the extent of the larger cue. Experiment 2 shows that it was not the predictability of where the target appeared within the cue that aided performance, but rather a consistent location mapping of cue and target, since predictably alternating the target location relative to the cue led to worse performance than when the target was presented in the same location relative to the cue from trial to trial. Further analysis of the results of experiment 2 shows that the learning is rapid, evident after one trial, and has a cumulative influence over four consecutive trials. Possible neural correlates of this form of learning are discussed, with a focus on the supplementary eye fields in the prefrontal cortex. The reported experiments show that transient attention is not a simple reflexive mechanism but can show rapid visuospatial learning, in object-based coordinates.