Subitizing requires attention

While counting objects is typically a slow, serial process, enumerating about four or fewer objects has been considered to be a relatively effortless, parallel, and even preattentive process often referred to as subitizing. However, by combining a subitizing task with an attentional blink task, we show that subitizing is systematically affected by a closely preceding letter identification task. Vice versa, letter identification is also affected by a closely preceding subitizing task. Importantly, performance not only depended on the time between the two tasks, but also on the number of to-be-enumerated dots, even though this number fell within the subitizing range. The results imply that the processes underlying subitizing require attentional resources, suggesting that they are either serial in nature, or parallel, with capacity limited by the overall resources available.     

Gist perception requires attention

Four experiments (240 subjects) explored gist perception without attention using the Mack and Rock (1998) cross task. Twelve scenes were flashed under conditions of inattention, divided, and full attention. Subjects described what they saw on critical trials in which a scene was flashed with the cross. In Experiments 3 and 4 subjects also chose the scene from a four scene array. In Experiment 4 the critical scenes were shown twice in the inattention condition. Overall, only 17% reported gist in the inattention condition, 65% did so with divided, and 82% did so with full attention. In Experiment 4 most subjects remained inattentionally blind to the scenes even though they were shown twice, conditions which fostered repetition priming, and we found a suggestion of negative priming. The results of all 4 experiments indicate that gist requires attention.     

Natural-scene perception requires attention

Is visual attention required for visual consciousness? In the past decade, many researchers have claimed that awareness can arise in the absence of attention. This claim is largely based on the notion that natural scene (or "gist") perception occurs without attention. This article presents evidence against this idea. We show that when observers perform a variety of demanding, sustained-attention tasks, inattentional blindness occurs for natural scenes. In addition, scene perception is impaired under dual-task conditions, but only when the primary task is sufficiently demanding. This finding suggests that previous studies that have been interpreted as demonstrating scene perception without attention failed to fully engage attention and that natural-scene perception does indeed require attention. Thus, natural-scene perception is not a preattentive process and cannot be used to support the idea of awareness without attention.     

Valuable orientations capture attention

Visual attention has long been known to be drawn to stimuli that are physically salient or congruent with task-specific goals. Several recent studies have shown that attention is also captured by stimuli that are neither salient nor task relevant, but that are rendered in a colour that has previously been associated with reward. We investigated whether another feature dimension—orientation—can be associated with reward via learning and thereby elicit value-driven attentional capture. In a training phase, participants received a monetary reward for identifying the colour of Gabor patches exhibiting one of two target orientations. A subsequent test phase in which no reward was delivered required participants to search for Gabor patches exhibiting one of two spatial frequencies (orientation was now irrelevant to the task). Previously rewarded orientations robustly captured attention. We conclude that reward learning can imbue features other than colour—in this case, specific orientations—with persistent value.     

Perception of ensemble statistics requires attention

To overcome inherent limitations in perceptual bandwidth, many aspects of the visual world are represented as summary statistics (e.g., average size, orientation, or density of objects). Here, we investigated the relationship between summary (ensemble) statistics and visual attention. Recently, it was claimed that one ensemble statistic in particular, color diversity, can be perceived without focal attention. However, a broader debate exists over the attentional requirements of conscious perception, and it is possible that some form of attention is necessary for ensemble perception. To test this idea, we employed a modified inattentional blindness paradigm and found that multiple types of summary statistics (color and size) often go unnoticed without attention. In addition, we found attentional costs in dual-task situations, further implicating a role for attention in statistical perception. Overall, we conclude that while visual ensembles may be processed efficiently, some amount of attention is necessary for conscious perception of ensemble statistics.     

Moving and looming stimuli capture attention

Attention capture is often operationally defined as speeded search performance when an otherwise nonpredictive stimulus happens to be the target of a visual search. That is, if a stimulus captures attention, it should be searched with priority even when it is irrelevant to the task. Given this definition, only the abrupt appearance of a new object (see, e.g., Jonides & Yantis, 1988) and one type of luminance contrast change (Enns, Austen, Di Lollo, Rauschenberger, & Yantis, 2001) have been shown to strongly capture attention. We show that translating and looming stimuli also capture attention. This phenomenon does not occur for all dynamic events: We also show that receding stimuli do not attract attention. Although the sorts of dynamic events that capture attention do not fit neatly into a single category, we speculate that stimuli that signal potentially behaviorally urgent events are more likely to receive attentional priority.     

Salient stimuli capture attention and action

Reaction times in a visual search task increase when an irrelevant but salient stimulus is presented. Recently, the hypothesis that the increase in reaction times was due to attentional capture by the salient distractor has been disputed. We devised a task in which a search display was shown after observers had initiated a reaching movement toward a touch screen. In a display of vertical bars, observers had to touch the oblique target while ignoring a salient color singleton. Because the hand was moving when the display appeared, reach trajectories revealed the current selection for action. We observed that salient but irrelevant stimuli changed the reach trajectory at the same time as the target was selected, about 270 ms after movement onset. The change in direction was corrected after another 160 ms. In a second experiment, we compared manual selection of color and orientation targets and observed that selection occurred earlier for color than for orientation targets. Salient stimuli support faster selection than do less salient stimuli. Under the assumption that attentional selection for action and perception are based on a common mechanism, our results suggest that attention is indeed captured by salient stimuli.     

Motion onset really does capture attention

Several properties of visual stimuli have been shown to capture attention, one of which is the onset of motion. However, whether motion onset truly captures attention has been debated. It has been argued that motion onset only captured attention in previous studies because properties of the animated motion used in those experiments caused it to be “jerky” (i.e., there were gaps between successive images during animated motion). The present study sought to determine whether natural motion onset captures attention. Additionally, the present study further examined the circumstances under which animated motion onset, the only type of motion onset that can be produced on a computer display, does and does not capture attention. In Experiment 1, participants identified target letters in search arrays containing distinct animated motion types, either accompanied or unaccompanied by a new object. Animated motion onset captured attention, but not when the motion onset was accompanied by a new object, indicating that prior failures to replicate capture by animated motion onset were limited because a new object had always been included in the display. Experiment 2 employed natural motion rather than animated motion and found that participants were fastest at identifying motion-onset targets compared to other target types. These results provide further support for the claim that motion onset captures attention.     

Visual short-term memory always requires general attention

The role of attention in visual memory remains controversial; while some evidence has suggested that memory for binding between features demands no more attention than does memory for the same features, other evidence has indicated cognitive costs or mnemonic benefits for explicitly attending to bindings. We attempted to reconcile these findings by examining how memory for binding, for features, and for features during binding is affected by a concurrent attention-demanding task. We demonstrated that performing a concurrent task impairs memory for as few as two visual objects, regardless of whether each object includes one or more features. We argue that this pattern of results reflects an essential role for domain-general attention in visual memory, regardless of the simplicity of the to-be-remembered stimuli. We then discuss the implications of these findings for theories of visual working memory.     

Active suppression after involuntary capture of attention

After attention has been involuntarily captured by a distractor, how is it reoriented toward a target? One possibility is that attention to the distractor passively fades over time, allowing the target to become attended. Another possibility is that the captured location is actively suppressed so that attention can be directed toward the target location. The present study investigated this issue with event-related potentials (ERPs), focusing on the N2pc component (a neural measure of attentional deployment) and the Pd component (a neural measure of attentional suppression). Observers identified a color-defined target in a search array, which was preceded by a task-irrelevant cue array. When the cue array contained an item that matched the target color, this item captured attention (as measured both behaviorally and with the N2pc component). This capture of attention was followed by active suppression (indexed by the Pd component), and this was then followed by a reorienting of attention toward the target in the search array (indexed by the N2pc component). These findings indicate that the involuntary capture of attention by a distractor is followed by an active suppression process that presumably facilitates the subsequent voluntary orienting of attention to the target.     

Non-transient luminance changes do not capture attention

The processing of luminance change is a ubiquitous feature of the human visual system and provides the basis for the rapid orienting of attention to potentially important events (e.g., motion onset, object onset). However, despite its importance for attentional capture, it is not known whether a luminance change attracts attention solely because of its status as a sensory transient or can attract attention at a relatively high cognitive level. In a series of six experiments, we presented visual displays in which a single object underwent a luminance change that was either visible or obscured by a mask. A target then appeared either at the change location or elsewhere. The results showed that the luminance change attracted attention only in the visible condition. This was even observed with the largest change we could generate (> 75 cd/m(2)). These data suggest that the importance of a luminance change is only in its status as a low-level sensory transient.     

Bodies capture attention when nothing is expected

Functional neuroimaging research has shown that certain classes of visual stimulus selectively activate focal regions of visual cortex. Specifically, cortical areas that generally and selectively respond to faces (Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17(11), 4302-4311; Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(16), 5205-5215.) and to the human body (Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science, 293(5539), 2470-2473.) have recently been described using fMRI. A parallel body of research has focused on the ability of faces to "capture" the focus of attention, compared to other kinds of objects (Lavie, N., Ro, T., & Russell, C. (2003). The role of perceptual load in processing distractor faces. Psychological Science, 14(5), 510-515; Ro, T., Russell, C., & Lavie, N. (2001). Changing faces: a detection advantage in the flicker paradigm. Psychological Science, 12(1), 94-99; Vuilleumier, P. (2000). Faces call for attention: evidence from patients with visual extinction. Neuropsychologia, 38(5), 693-700.). The present study uses Mack and Rock's "inattentional blindness" paradigm to investigate whether unexpected, task-irrelevant human body stimuli capture awareness when attention is occupied by a primary task (Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. London: MIT Press). Silhouettes and stick figures of human bodies, and silhouettes of hands, were compared to control stimuli including object silhouettes, object stick figures, and scrambled silhouettes of bodies, body parts, and objects. Participants were significantly better able to detect a human figure relative to the control stimuli. These results suggest that the human body, like the face, may be prioritized for attentional selection. More generally, they are consistent with the proposal that the visual system assigns attentional priority to types of stimuli that are also represented in strongly selective cortical regions.     

Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture

Distractor stimuli possessing information that is relevant for a task (henceforth, task-relevant distractors) often interfere with task performance. The interference by task-relevant distractors is observed even when distractors are positioned outside the main attentional focus. We investigated whether such interference is due to an attention capture by the distractors. Participants responded to a target colour while ignoring word distractors positioned within (Experiment 1) or outside (Experiments 2 and 3) the attentional focus. The words carried task-relevant information in their colour and personally significant information in their content. Because personally significant information affects performance only when positioned in an attended region, it was used as a marker for the locus of the attentional focus. As expected, when distractors were attended, both task-relevant and personally significant information affected performance. However, when distractors were unattended, only task-relevant information caused interference, suggesting that attention did not shift to the distractors’ location. We discuss possible accounts for interference effects in focused-attention tasks.     

Linear mapping of numbers onto space requires attention

Mapping of number onto space is fundamental to mathematics and measurement. Previous research suggests that while typical adults with mathematical schooling map numbers veridically onto a linear scale, pre-school children and adults without formal mathematics training, as well as individuals with dyscalculia, show strong compressive, logarithmic-like non-linearities when mapping both symbolic and non-symbolic numbers onto the numberline. Here we show that the use of the linear scale is dependent on attentional resources. We asked typical adults to position clouds of dots on a numberline of various lengths. In agreement with previous research, they did so veridically under normal conditions, but when asked to perform a concurrent attentionally-demanding conjunction task, the mapping followed a compressive, non-linear function. We model the non-linearity both by the commonly assumed logarithmic transform, and also with a Bayesian model of central tendency. These results suggest that veridical representation numerosity requires attentional mechanisms.     

Entirely irrelevant distractors can capture and captivate attention

The question of whether a stimulus onset may capture attention when it is entirely irrelevant to the task and even in the absence of any attentional settings for abrupt onset or any dynamic changes has been highly controversial. In the present study, we designed a novel irrelevant capture task to address this question. Participants engaged in a continuous task making sequential forced choice (letter or digit) responses to each item in an alphanumeric matrix that remained on screen throughout many responses. This task therefore involved no attentional settings for onset or indeed any dynamic changes, yet the brief onset of an entirely irrelevant distractor (a cartoon picture) resulted in significant slowing of the two (Experiment 1) or three (Experiment 2) responses immediately following distractor appearance These findings provide a clear demonstration of attention being captured and captivated by a distractor that is entirely irrelevant to any attentional settings of the task.     

Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention

Is there a difference in the kind of attention elicited by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and that elicited by an instruction (e.g., a central arrow cue) to move attention to a peripheral location? In Experiment 1, we found that peripheral cues are no more effective in orienting attention than are central cues. No evidence was found for separable attentional systems consisting of a volitional response to central cues and an automatic response triggered only by peripheral cues. Rather, an identical or similar attentional process seems to be activated by either type of cue, although perhaps in different ways. Peripheral cues seem to have an automatic component, however, in that once attention is engaged by a peripheral cue, it cannot easily be disengaged for refocus elsewhere. In Experiment 2, after several sessions of practice, subjects were able to circumvent automatic attentional capture by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and to volitionally redirect the focus of attention. Thus, attentional capture by abrupt-onset stimuli is not strongly automatic.     

Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues

The present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.     

Suppression of involuntary spatial response activation requires selective attention

The role of selective attention in resolving within‐object response conflict was explored in a visual‐search variant of the Simon task. We asked whether selective attention is required for the suppression of involuntary spatial response activation. In two experiments we systematically introduced delays between target onset and target selection, and between target selection and response. Participants made speeded left or right key‐presses to the colour of a target letter O that appeared among varying numbers of nontarget Qs. This difficult search task separated the time of target onset from the time of target selection. Experiment 1 showed that the time course of spatial response suppression was not synched to target onset, but to the time of selective attention to the target. In Experiment 2, the response relevant colour was delayed for variable intervals after the onset of the search array. In this way target selection could occur before the response to the target could be determined. Compatibility effects now decreased with the delay between target selection and the relevant response information. These results show that selective attention is necessary for involuntary response suppression, and they constrain possible models for the control of action in complex environments.     

Masked-target recovery requires focused attention on the target object

Flashing a homogeneous light mask after the presentation of a masked target reduces the deleterious effects of the mask, a phenomenon often called target recovery. Target recovery has been studied using masking paradigms in which a target object is presented in isolation prior to the presentation of a mask, thus capturing attention. In the present study, we examined whether target recovery is possible when a target does not benefit from attentional capture. We hypothesized that target recovery would be eliminated when a target must compete with distractors for perceptual attention. Replicating classic studies, we observed target recovery when pattern and light masks followed an isolated target. However, target recovery was not observed when a light mask followed a masked visual search target. Furthermore, using an attentional-capture paradigm we found that sudden onset search targets were recoverable whereas nononset targets were not. The present findings indicate that attentional capture by a target prior to masking plays a critical role in the subsequent recovery of the target.