新旧客体颜色比例对预览效应的影响

采用预览搜索范式,考察新旧客体颜色比例对预览效应的影响。实验一通过操纵旧客体的颜色比例,考察旧客体颜色比例对预览效应的影响。结果表明,旧客体颜色比例影响预览效应,并且预览效应受目标与旧客体颜色比例关系的影响。实验二通过操纵新客体的颜色比例,考察新客体颜色比例对预览效应的影响。结果表明,新客体颜色比例影响预览效应,并且预览效应受目标与新客体颜色比例关系的影响。研究表明,预览效应受新旧客体颜色比例关系的影响,并且基于旧客体颜色的抑制机制起到决定的作用。     

特征变化的连续性影响客体连续表征的维持

本研究采用客体回溯范式考察了特征变化的连续性对维持客体连续表征的作用。实验1和实验2分别探索了形状维度上的变化方式（不变、渐变、突变）和亮度维度上的变化方式（不变、渐变、随机变化）对客体预览利化效应的影响。在特征连续条件下（不变或渐变）,两个实验都获得了客体预览利化效应。而在特征不连续变化条件下（突变或随机变化）,该效应消失。这些结果说明特征变化的连续性同样影响客体连续表征的维持。     

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。     

客体工作记忆对注意的导向作用：抑制动机的影响

通过两个实验验证了客体工作记忆内容对注意的导向过程是灵活可控的; 与客体工作记忆内容匹配的刺激既可以捕获注意, 也可以被抑制。实验1通过操作匹配试验概率来诱发不同水平的抑制动机, 考察在客体工作记忆内容对注意的导向作用中抑制动机的影响。匹配试验中有分心物与客体工作记忆内容相同。控制试验中所有搜索项目均与客体工作记忆内容不同。实验2保持实际匹配试验概率恒定, 仅通过改变指导语来调节抑制动机水平, 以排除练习的干扰。两实验结果均表明, 当抑制动机水平较低时, 匹配分心物会捕获注意; 而当抑制动机水平足够高时, 匹配分心物会被抑制。并且, 抑制动机水平的高低还会影响认知控制的效应量和时程。     

目光注视线索对客体注意的影响及作用机制

目光注视在人类社交以及捕获和维持注意方面发挥重要作用。但是, 目光注视如何与客体交互以引导注意分配至今尚不明确。因此, 本研究采用双框线索范式, 以具有两种注视方向(直视或回避)的面孔或实物作为客体, 通过操纵线索到目标间的SOA来考察目光注视对客体注意的影响及作用机制。实验1发现, 目光注视对客体效应的影响只出现在300 ms SOA时; 进一步分析发现, 客体效应的差异来自于直视条件下被试对无效相同客体位置上的目标比回避条件下反应更快。这表明与回避目光相比, 直视更能捕获我们的注意, 从而产生更大的客体效应。实验2将面孔对比度反转, 排除了低水平物理特征对实验1结果的影响。实验3使用两种注视方向的眼睛叠加杯子作为客体, 以探究目光注视效应是否能扩展到其他客体中, 结果与实验1相同。本研究结果表明, 目光注视能够与客体交互共同引导注意分配, 直视更能捕获注意, 但受SOA的影响, 上述结果支持了感觉增强理论。     

客体表征质量在语义客体注意效应中的作用

已有研究表明,除自下而上因素外,自上而下因素也能够对客体知觉起到调节作用,从而影响注意的分配。本研究以不同词频（高频和低频）的汉语双字词为实验材料,采用双矩形线索范式变式考察不同语义客体表征质量对基于语义客体注意效应的影响。结果发现,在高语义客体表征质量的条件下出现了基于语义客体的注意效应,而在低语义客体表征质量的条件下并未出现基于语义客体的注意效应。该结果表明,语义客体表征质量的高低是影响基于语义客体注意效应的重要因素。     

预览效应产生机制的眼动实验研究

利用眼动（Eyelink-2000）自带软件EB编制实验程序呈现由字母“T”经旋转后组成的刺激材料,参照预搜索范式设计了“预览组”和“清屏组”两组实验,利用区组内评估法评估两组实验预览效应产生与否以及产生的程度,以此来考察预览效应产生的内在机制.实验结果显示不管靶子是否出现,预览组和清屏组产生预览效应的程度一致,这表明：预览效应的产生是被试基于自上而下对旧客体的抑制而引起的.     

注意次级任务对客体与空间工作记忆信息保持的选择性干扰

通过两个行为实验,考察两种选择性注意干扰任务是否分别对客体与空间信息的保持产生选择性干扰,及干扰效应是否受记忆对象言语命名和编码难易程度的影响.实验1采用言语命名和编码容易的记忆任务,没有发现任何显著的干扰效应.实验2采用了言语命名和编码困难的记忆任务,结果分析发现:空间选择性注意次级干扰任务对空间工作记忆成绩存在显著的干扰效应,而基于客体的选择性注意次级干扰任务则对客体工作记忆成绩产生了显著的干扰.实验结果说明,基于客体的选择性注意和空间选择性注意分别在言语命名和编码困难客体与空间信息的保持加工中发挥作用,但当面对言语命名和编码容易的客体与空间记忆目标时,不再发生作用.     

选择性注意中的客体与空间因素

注意选择理论可以分为空间选择和客体选择两大模型,文章首先介绍了这两类模型的观点,概述了客体选择和空间因素的关系与区别,也介绍了包括距离操纵和线索启动在内的客体选择和空间选择分离技术及其理论逻辑。     

Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: new onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage

It has been argued that search performance under preview conditions relies on automatic capture by luminance onsets (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). We present three experiments in which preview search was examined with both isoluminant and nonisoluminant items (e.g., as defined by luminance onsets). Experiment 1 provided evidence against the automatic capture of attention by onsets. Search benefited when onset previews were followed by new onset stimuli, as compared with a full-set baseline matched for the number of new onsets but in which half the distractors appeared simultaneously at isoluminance. Furthermore, both Experiments 1 and 2 established a preview advantage when isoluminant targets followed onset previews, when compared with appropriate full-set baselines. Experiment 3 replicated this result, while showing that the preview benefit was disrupted by dual-task interference. The data indicate that new onsets are not necessary to generate a preview advantage in search. We discuss the data in terms of search's benefiting from active inhibition of old onset-defined stimuli.     

Contingent visual marking by transients

Preview search is a phenomenon in which a set of new items can be searched with seemingly no interference from items already present in the display. The preview effect has been shown to occur only when the presentation of the new items is accompanied by a luminance change (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). In a series of experiments, we extend the type of transients that can lead to a preview benefit to offsets and motion, and confirm Donk and Theeuwes's finding that equiluminant color changes do not lead to a preview effect. Like Donk and Theeuwes, we find that preview search does not occur when only the old items undergo a transient change, suggesting that the processes responsible for preview search are triggered when the new items undergo a change detectable by the magnocellular system. In addition, we find that irrelevant transients interfere with preview search only when they match the current attentional set (e.g., luminance change or motion). Results suggest that preview search is not the automatic capture of attention by transients, but rather is contingent on top-down control settings.     

History matters: the preview benefit in search is not onset capture

Visual search for a conjunction target is made easier when distractor items are temporally segregated over time to produce two separate old and new groups (the new group containing the target item). The benefit of presenting half the distractors first is known as the preview effect. Recently, some researchers have argued that the preview effect occurs because new stimuli capture attention. This account was tested in the present study by using a novel "top-up" condition that exploits the fact that when previews appear only briefly before the search display, there is minimal preview benefit. We show that effects of a brief preview can be "topped up" by an earlier exposure of the same items, even when the preview disappears between its first and second presentations.This top-up effect demonstrates that the history of the old stimuli is important for the preview benefit, contrary to the account favoring onset capture. We discuss alternative accounts of how the preview benefit arises.     

Top-up search and the attentional blink: A two-stage account of the preview effect in search

An inefficient visual search task can be facilitated if half the distractor items are presented as a preview prior to the presentation of the remaining distractor items and target. This benefit in search is termed the preview effect. Recent research has found that a preview effect can still occur if the previewed items disappear before reappearing again just before the search items (the “top-up” procedure). In this paper we investigate the attentional demands of processing during the preview and the top-up periods. Experiment 1 found that if attention is withdrawn from the top-up stage then no preview effect occurs. Likewise if attention is withdrawn from the initial preview period then the preview effect is reduced (Experiment 2). The data suggest that the preview effect is dependent on attention being paid both to the initial display and also to the re-presentation of the old display before the search display appears. The data counter accounts of preview search in terms of automatic attention capture by new items or by inhibition of return. We discuss alternative accounts of the results, and in particular suggest an amalgamation of a temporal grouping and a visual marking account of preview search.     

Resisting change: The influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit

Visual search can benefit when one set of distractors is presented as a preview, prior to the appearance the second set of distractors plus the target (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). It has been shown that changing the shape of the old, previewed stimuli when the new items appear causes the old stimuli to recompete for selection with the new ones. In contrast, changing the luminance or color of the old stimuli has no detrimental effects. Here, we present five experiments that reassessed the effect of luminance changes in preview search. We show (1) that preview search is remarkably resistant to large changes in the absolute luminance of the old stimuli, even when those changes would ordinarily be sufficient to signal the appearance of a new object and draw attention (Experiments 1 and 2), and (2) that resistance to luminance changes can be bolstered by feature-based inhibitory processes (Experiments 3–5). These findings are discussed in terms of the possible ecological properties of time-based visual selection and possible mechanisms underlying the preview benefit.     

Offsets and prioritizing the selection of new elements in search displays: More evidence for attentional capture in the preview effect

The preview effect refers to the finding that new elements in a search display are prioritized over old elements. Donk and Theeuwes (2001) suggest that this prioritization is due to bottom-up attentional capture, as new elements that abruptly appear with increases in luminance produce a preview effect whereas new elements that are equiluminant to the background do not. The present study extends this research by examining if new elements that appear from offsets, with and without luminance changes, yield similar findings to onsets. This was indeed the case, as equiluminant offsets did not produce a preview effect but offsets with corresponding increases or decreases in luminance did show the prioritization of new elements over old elements. These findings show that the prioritization of new elements is sensitive to changes in luminance but not to the direction of such changes.     

Is it impossible to inhibit isoluminant items, or does it simply take longer? Evidence from preview search

Visual search can be facilitated when participants receive a preview of half the distractors (the preview benefit in search; Watson & Humphreys, 1997). Donk and Theeuwes (2001) have argued that preview-based benefits are abolished if the display items are isoluminant to a background. This is consistent with the preview benefit being due to onset capture by the new stimuli. In contrast, the present experiments challenge this suggestion and show that preview benefits can occur under isoluminant conditions, providing that they are given enough time to occur. In Experiment 1, we showed that a preview benefit can occur even with isoluminant stimuli, provided that the old items are previewed for a sufficient time. In Experiment 2, we tested and rejected the idea that this advantage is due to low-level sensory fatigue for the preview stimuli. These findings indicate that the preview effect is not caused solely by onset capture.     

Faster target selection in preview visual search depends on luminance onsets: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence

To investigate how target detection in visual search is modulated when a subset of distractors is presented in advance (preview search), we measured search performance and the N2pc component as an electrophysiological marker of attentional target selection. Targets defined by a color/shape conjunction were detected faster and the N2pc emerged earlier in preview search relative to a condition in which all items were presented simultaneously. Behavioral and electrophysiological preview benefits disappeared when stimuli were equiluminant with their background, in spite of the fact that targets were feature singletons among the new items in preview search. The results demonstrate that previewing distractors expedites the spatial selection of targets at early sensory-perceptual stages, and that these preview benefits depend on rapid attentional capture by luminance onsets.     

Visual marking across eye blinks

Visual search for a conjunction target can be made efficient by presenting one initial set of distractors as a preview, prior to the onset of the other items in the search display Watson & Humphreys (Psychological Review 104:90–122, 1997). However, this “preview advantage” is lost if the initial items are offset for a brief period before onsetting again with the search display Kunar, Humphreys, & Smith (Psychological Science 14:181–185, 2003). Researchers have long disputed whether the preview advantage reflects a process of internally coding and suppressing the old items or of the onset of the new items capturing attention Donk & Theeuwes (Perception & Psychophysics 63:891–900, 2001). In this study, we assessed whether an internally driven blink (in which participants close their eyes) acts in the same manner as an external blink produced by offsetting and then onsetting the preview. In the novel blink conditions, participants searched feature, conjunction, and preview displays after being cued to blink their eyes. The search displays were presented during the eye blink, and so were immediately available once participants opened their eyes. Having participants make an eye blink generally slowed search but had no effect on the search slopes. In contrast, imposing an externally driven blink disrupted preview search. The data indicated that visual attention can compensate for internally driven blinks, and this does not lead to the loss of the representations of distractors across time. Moreover, efficient preview search occurred when the search items had no abrupt onsets, demonstrating that onsets of new search items are not critical for the preview benefit.     

Visual marking: the effects of irrelevant changes on preview search

Visual search is facilitated when participants receive a preview of half of the distractors before presentation of the second distractor set (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). In seven experiments, we examined the effects of irrelevant change on this preview benefit. Experiments 1-4 showed that the benefit was not disrupted by the abrupt appearance of irrelevant distractors during the preview period unless they were the same color as the new items. However, blinking off-and-on irrelevant distractors that were present at the start of the preview period disrupted the preview benefit irrespective of their feature overlap with other items (Experiments 5-7). The data are consistent with the inhibition of old stimuli (visual marking) via a location-based template along with an anticipatory feature-based set for new stimuli.