Onset of illusory figures attenuates change blindness

We examined whether the onset of a new object defined by illusory contours is detected with greater frequency than offset when neither is associated with a unique sensory transient. Observers performed a “one-shot” change detection task in which offsetting or onsetting elements of high luminance contrast circles generated the appearance or disappearance of a Kanizsa figure. Presenting “illusory figures” via this “flicker” method ensures that (1) any unique luminance transients associated with the two types of change are eliminated, and (2) the objects themselves can only be represented at a relatively high level. Results showed that offsets were detected more frequently than onsets only when they generated the onset of a Kanizsa figure. We argue that object appearance dominates object disappearance via mechanisms that operate at the level at which objects are constructed.     

Why don't we see changes?: The role of attentional bottlenecks and limited visual memory

Seven experiments explore the role of bottlenecks in selective attention and access to visual short-term memory in the failure of observers to identify clearly visible changes in otherwise stable visual displays. Experiment One shows that observers fail to register a color change in an object even if they are cued to the location of the object by a transient at that location as the change is occurring. Experiment Two shows the same for orientation change. In Experiments Three and Four, attention is directed to specific objects prior to making changes in those objects. Observers have only a very limited memory for the status of recently attended items. Experiment Five reveals that observers have no ability to detect changes that happen after attention has been directed to an object and before attention returns to that object. In Experiment Six, attention is cued at rates that more closely resemble natural rates and Experiment Seven uses natural images. Memory capacity remains very small (<4 items).     

Visual salience in the change detection paradigm: the special role of object onset

The relative efficacy with which appearance of a new object orients visual attention was investigated. At issue is whether the visual system treats onset as being of particular importance or only 1 of a number of stimulus events equally likely to summon attention. Using the 1-shot change detection paradigm, the authors compared detectability of new objects with changes occurring at already present objects--luminance change, color change, and object offset. Results showed that appearance of a new object was less susceptible to change blindness than changes that old objects could undergo. The authors also investigated whether it is onset per se that leads to enhanced detectability or onset of an object representation. Results showed that the onset advantage was eliminated for onsets that did not correspond with the appearance of a new object. These findings suggest that the visual system is particularly sensitive to the onset of a new object.     

Change blindness and the primacy of object appearance

A large body of work suggests that the visual system is particularly sensitive to the appearance of new objects. This is based partly on evidence from visual search studies showing that onsets capture attention whereas many other types of visual event do not. Recently, however, the notion that object onset has a special status in visual attention has been challenged. For instance, an object that looms toward an observer has also been shown to capture attention. In two experiments, we investigated whether onset receives processing priority over looming. Observers performed a change detection task in which one of the display objects either loomed or receded, or a new object appeared. Results showed that looming objects were more resistant to change blindness than receding objects. Crucially, however, the appearance of a new object was less susceptible to change blindness than both looming and receding. We argue that the visual system is particularly sensitive to object onsets.     

Perceptual conditions necessary to induce change blindness

Change blindness is a failure to detect a change in an scene when the change occurs along with some visual disturbances. Disturbances are thought to play a delocalizing role that affects the saliency of the “target” transient signal coming from the change location, which would otherwise capture attention and render the change visible. For instance, it is hypothesized that the appearance of new objects in the “mudsplashes” paradigm generates transient signals that compete with the target object's transient signal for attracting attention. Thus, experiments using the mudsplashes paradigm do not rule out a possible role of object changes in capturing attention. Here, by reversing image contrast polarity, we develop a new paradigm to produce change blindness when a real global transient signal is the only visual event occurring, with no edges added or deleted except in the target object. The results show that transient signals, per se, are able to prevent change detection. However, abrupt transients are not necessary if object change occurs in the zero-contrast phase of a smoothly fading and reappearing image, leaving attention as the only common factor affecting all cases of change blindness.     

Contingent capture for onsets and offsets: attentional set for perceptual transients

Four experiments were conducted to examine whether attentional set affects the ability of visual transients (onsets and offsets) to capture attention. In the experiments, visual search for an identity-defined target was conducted. In the first 3 experiments, the target display either onset entirely or was revealed by offsetting camouflaging line segments to reveal letters. Prior to the target display, there was a noninformative cue, either an onset or an offset, at one of the potential target locations. Cues that shared the same transient feature as the target display captured attention. The lack of predictable target transients led to attentional capture by all forms of transients. The final experiments with luminance changes without offsets or onsets showed attentional capture when the luminance changes were large. The results suggest that attentional set can be broadly or narrowly tuned to detect changes in luminance.     

Do new objects capture attention?

The visual system relies on several heuristics to direct attention to important locations and objects. One of these mechanisms directs attention to sudden changes in the environment. Although a substantial body of research suggests that this capture of attention occurs only for the abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object, more recent evidence shows that some luminance-based transients (e.g., motion and looming) and some types of brightness change also capture attention. These findings show that new objects are not necessary for attention capture. The present study tested whether they are even sufficient. That is, does a new object attract attention because the visual system is sensitive to new objects or because it is sensitive to the transients that new objects create? In two experiments using a visual search task, new objects did not capture attention unless they created a strong local luminance transient.     

Attentional capture by object appearance and disappearance

In two experiments we examined whether the appearance of a new object has attentional priority over disappearance. Previous failures to show differences are possibly due to onsets and offsets always being presented as a sole visual transient. Rather than presenting each alone, we presented onset and offset singletons simultaneously with a display-wide luminance transient in order to force each to compete with other visual events. Results from Experiment 1 showed that targets associated with onsets accrued a reaction time benefit whilst targets associated with offsets did not. Experiment 2 showed that onsets attracted attention even when observers were attentionally set to look for offset. By contrast, offsets needed a relevant attentional set in order to attract attention. We argue that the appearance of an object has attentional priority over disappearance.     

New objects do not capture attention without a sensory transient

Attention capture occurs when a stimulus event involuntarily recruits attention. The abrupt appearance of a new object is perhaps the most well-studied attention-capturing event, yet there is debate over the root cause of this capture. Does a new object capture attention because it involves the creation of a new object representation or because its appearance creates a characteristic luminance transient? The present study sought to resolve this question by introducing a new object into a search display, either with or without a unique luminance transient. Contrary to the results of a recent study (Davoli, Suszko, & Abrams, 2007), when the new objects transient was masked by a brief interstimulus interval introduced between the placeholder and search arrays, a new object did not capture attention. Moreover, when a new objects transient was masked, participants could not locate a new object efficiently even when that was their explicit goal. Together, these data suggest that luminance transient signals are necessary for attention capture by new objects.     

Visible persistence following a brief increment in stimulus luminance

In previous studies, it has been demonstrated that visible persistence--the period for which the perceived duration of a stimulus exceeds its physical duration--can be extended by briefly incrementing the luminance of the stimulus immediately prior to offset. Using a two-component pattern integration task, we show that this effect is not an artifact of change in the total luminous flux within the stimulus. Visible persistence was unaffected by overall luminance of the stimulus. It was also time-locked to the luminance increment. Visible persistence is seen to result from a process that is initiated by stimulus onset and that can be either wholly or partially reinitiated by the onset of the luminance increment. The duration of this process (which determines the duration of stimulus visibility) can be modified in a graded fashion by stimulus events that occur after its initiation. We outline a single-process inhibitory feedback model of the persistence mechanism that accounts for the present findings.     

Transient covert attention does alter appearance: a reply to Schneider (2006)

We recently demonstrated that transient covert attention increases the apparent contrast of a stimulus (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004). Schneider (2006) proposes that the observed increase in apparent contrast is largely due to sensory interactions occurring between the precue a nd stimulus,rather than to attention. Specifically, hereports that cuing effects only occur at contrasts ne ar detection threshold, and that there a re confounding sensoryinteractions between the cue and stimulus at suprathreshold detection contrasts. Our response is twofold. First, we outline the key methodological differences between our original study and Schneider's that are likely to account for the different results, and explain how we had ruled out the sensory interaction explanation of the cue. Second, we directly test the prediction put forth by Schneider. If the effects were due to sensory interactions, reversing the luminance polarity of the precue in our paradigm should lead to differential cuing effects. We replicate one of the experiments of our original study and add a condition in which the cue luminance is either black or white. Our results replicated our previous findings-they showed an increase in apparent contrast to a high-contrast stimulus when it was precued. Moreover, we found that the black cue and the white cue had the same effect, thus ruling out the alternative explanation proposed by Schneider. Transient attention does alter contrast appearance.     

Isoluminant motion onset captures attention

In their 2003 article, Abrams and Christ found that the onset of motion captured attention more effectively than either the offset of motion or continuous motion. Abrams and Christ conceptualized the capture to be occurring at a level higher than does detection of luminance changes in the stimulus. To examine this claim, in the present experiments we replicated their critical experiment but used isoluminant stimuli, which do not produce the low-level luminance transients typically associated with motion. Under isoluminant conditions, we found a pattern of results very similar to that found previously with luminance-defined stimuli, indicating that attention can be prioritized on the basis of perceived motion onset by an object in the absence of low-level luminance transients. This may reflect an evolutionary adaptation to bias attention toward objects that exhibit characteristics of animacy, such as abruptly changing from a static to a dynamic state.     

Attentional misguidance in visual search

Previous research has shown that a task-irrelevant sudden onset of an object will capture an observer’s visual attention or draw it to that object (e.g., Yantis & Jonides, 1984). However, further research has demonstrated the apparent inability of an object with a task-irrelevant but unique color or luminance to capture attention (Jonides & Yantis, 1988). In the experiments reported here, we reexplore the question of whether task-irrelevant properties other than sudden onset may capture attention. Our results suggest that uniquely colored or luminous objects, as well as salient though irrelevant boundaries, do not appear to capture attention. However, these irrelevant features do appear to serve as landmarks for a top-down search strategy which becomes increasingly likely with larger display set sizes. These findings are described in terms of stimulus-driven and goal-directed aspects of attentional control.     

Measuring the duration of perception

An analysis is presented of ways in which the total duration of perception of transient visual stimuli may be determined by means of psychophysical judgments of the simultaneity (or relative precedence) of two sensory events. This analysis yields a new method for measuring the duration of perception that only requires judgments of the simultaneity of the offset of one visual target with the onset of another (“offset-onset” judgments), and is thus free of differential biases between onset-onset and offset-onset judgments of simultaneity which could be involved in previous measurements. When three or more perceived durations need to be determined, the new method is more efficient than earlier methods; it requires measurement of only one PSE in order to evaluate one response duration as compared to two PSEs per response duration for previous methods. We also describe ways of determining the presence of some kinds of biases and quantitatively evaluating the magnitude of bias in the new method, as well as bias in onset-onset or offset-offset judgments of simultaneity alone; such evaluations of differential bias were not possible for the earlier methods. An experimental example of a bias analysis is described. No significant biasing effects were detected in the measures of perceived duration that were extracted as either retinal location or background luminance was changed, although background luminance itself markedly influenced the values of perceived duration.     

Object property encoding and change blindness in multiple object tracking

The paradigm of multiple object tracking (MOT) is an established tool for investigating human performance under conditions of divided attention to several objects. We studied change detection ability for colour and shape information in the setting of MOT. Subjects had to detect colour and shape changes during an MOT task. These changes occurred either openly (with nothing to hide them) or with a mud splash in the background to hide the change transient signal. Our experiment demonstrated that (1) when hidden by mud splashes, we fail to perceive a considerable number of colour changes even in the attended objects (i.e., targets) and (2) the visual system is significantly more likely to miss colour and shape changes in distractors than in target. We conclude that a colour change will be detected a lot more efficiently if attention is drawn to its transient. When a simultaneous mud splash hides the transient signal, subjects are significantly less efficient in detecting the change.     

The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets

A letter can be presented visually either by the abrupt appearance of lines that make up the letter (onset transient) or by the abrupt disappearance of extra lines from a form in which the letter is embedded (offset transient). Recent evidence from visual-search tasks has suggested that onset transients have absolute priority over offset transients with respect to the allocation of visual attention. Specifically, these studies have found that a single onset-transient target letter pops out of a background of offset-transient distractor letters (i.e., time to detect the target is independent of the number of distractors), which indicates that attention is automatically directed to the location of an onset-transient stimulus even when there are competing offset transients (Yantis & Jonides, 1984). Because of the way the offset letters were created, however, the total display change (number of offset line-segments plus number of onset line-segments) was greater for onset than for offset letters. Thus, onset targets might have popped out because they produced greater overall display changes rather than because they were the only letters with onset transients. In the present study, a figure that included more offset-transient line segments in the offset-transient letters was used. Under these conditions, onset-transient targets did not pop out of a background of offset-transient distractors. It is suggested that visual attention may be influenced by total display change and, therefore, that onset transients are not necessarily sufficient to control attention when there are many competing offset transients.     

Dissociations among attention, perception, and awareness during object-substitution masking

When a visual target object is surrounded by four dots that onset at the same time as the target but remain visible after the target terminates, the four dots dramatically impair target discrimination performance. This phenomenon is called object-substitution masking , reflecting the hypothesis that both the target and the four dots are identified, but the representation of the four dots replaces the representation of the target object before the target can be reported. The present study used the event-related potential technique to demonstrate that a target masked in this manner is identified by the visual system and triggers a shift of attention. However, by the time attention is shifted to the target, only the mask remains visible, leading to impaired behavioral detection performance. These findings support the object-substitution hypothesis and provide new evidence that perception, attention, and awareness can be dissociated.     

Do the magnocellular and parvocellular visual pathways contribute differentially to subitizing and counting?

We investigated the neurobiologies! basis of visual processes involved in object enumeration. Subitizing, the ability to rapidly and accurately enumerate four or fewer objects, is thought to depend on preattentive processing of visual stimuli, whereas counting of more numerous objects is thought to require serial shifts of attention. We attempted to distinguish between the hypothesis that the magnocellular (M) visual pathway is the preferential route for subitizing, and the alternative hypothesis that there is no selectivity for the M pathway or its counterpart, the parvocellular (P) visual pathway, in visual object enumeration. Green rectangles were presented on an equiluminant red background to impair M pathway processing. This slowed enumeration performance relative to a control condition in which object/background luminance differed, especially when the rectangles were relatively large and widely spaced and had constant retinal eccentricity. When low luminance contrast was used to impair processing along the P pathway, enumeration performance was slowed relative to a high-contrast control condition, especially when the rectangles were small and closely spaced. Overall, our manipulations affected enumeration performance without selectivity for subitizing or counting ranges and without altering the slope of the functions relating reaction time to numerosity. Thus, our results favor the hypothesis that visual enumeration does not depend preferentially on either the M or the P pathway.     

Attention capture by contour onsets and offsets: No special role for onsets

In five experiments, we investigated the power of targets defined by the onset or offset of one of an object’s parts (contour onsets and offsets) either to guide or to capture visual attention. In Experiment 1, search for a single contour onset target was compared with search for a single contour offset target against a static background of distractors; no difference was found between the efficiency with which each could be detected. In Experiment 2, onsets and offsets were compared for automatic attention capture, when both occurred simultaneously. Unlike in previous studies, the effects of overall luminance change, new-object creation, and number of onset and offset items were controlled. It was found that contour onset and offset items captured attention equally well. However, display size effects on both target types were also apparent. Such effects may have been due to competition for selection between multiple onset and offset stimuli. In Experiments 3 and 4, single onset and offset stimuli were presented simultaneously and pitted directly against one another among a background of static distractors. In Experiment 3, we examined “guided search,” for a target that was formed either from an onset or from an offset among static items. In Experiment 4, the onsets and offsets were uncorrelated with the target location. Similar results occurred in both experiments: target onsets and offsets were detected more efficiently than static stimuli which needed serial search; there remained effects of display size on performance; but there was still no advantage for onsets. In Experiment 5, we examined automatic attention capture by single onset and offset stimuli presented individually among static distractors. Again, there was no advantage for onset over offset targets and a display size effect was also present. These results suggest that, both in isolation and in competition, onsets that do not form new objects neither guide nor gain automatic attention more efficiently than offsets. In addition, in contrast to previous studies in which onsets formed new objects, contour onsets and offsets did not reliably capture attention automatically.