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.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and locationbased components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexiveexogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue—target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue—target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

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.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing.

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and location-based components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexive exogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue-target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue-target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

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.     

The relationship between covert and overt attention in endogenous cuing

In a standard Posner paradigm, participants were endogenously cued to attend to a peripheral location in visual space without making eye movements. They responded faster to target letters presented at cued than at uncued locations. On some trials, instead of a manual response, they had to move their eyes to a location in space. Results showed that the eyes deviated away from the validly cued location; when the cue was invalid and attention had to be allocated to the uncued location, eye movements also deviated away, but now from the uncued location. The extent to which the eyes deviated from cued and uncued locations was related to the dynamics of attention allocation. We hypothesized that this deviation was due to the successful inhibition of the attended location. The results imply that the oculomotor system is not only involved during the endogenous direction of covert attention to a cued location, but also when covert attention is directed to an uncued location. It appears that the oculomotor system is activated wherever spatial attention is allocated. The strength of saccade deviation might turn out to be an important measure for the amount of attention allocated to any particular location over time.     

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.     

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.     

Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.     

Stimulus discrimination following covert attentional orienting to an exogenous cue.

Five experiments explored exogenous covert visual-attentional orienting following a brief peripheral cue. On each trial an attentional cue was followed by a stimulus in an empty field at 1 of 8 locations on an imaginary circle centered on the fixation point. The cued area size and the cue-target spatial relation were manipulated. Accuracy and response time were affected by the exogenous cue validity. Attention was allocated to a specific location in a visual quadrant: A target at an uncued location in a quadrant was not facilitated as much as target at the cued location, and a target in a different quadrant was inhibited in relation to a neutral condition. Cuing 2 locations in a quadrant was not as facilitative for targets at the cued locations or as inhibitive for targets at other locations compared with cuing a single location in a quadrant. Results are discussed in the context of several extent models of covert visual-spatial attention.     

Object features, object locations, and object files: which does selective attention activate and when?

The representation within which attention operates was investigated in 3 experiments. The task was similar to that of R. Egly, J. Driver, and R. D. Rafal (1994). Participants had to detect the presence of a target at 1 of 4 ends of 2 shapes, differing in color and form. A precue appeared at 1 of the 4 possible corners. The 2 shapes occupied either the same or different locations in the cuing and target displays. The results showed that the cued object location was attended whether or not space was task relevant, whereas the cued object features (color and form) were attended only when these were task relevant. Moreover, when object file continuity was maintained through continuous movement, attention was found to follow the cued object file as it moved while also accruing to the cued location.     

Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: is attention biased to go right?

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that individuals are slower to respond to a target presented at a previously attended location than they are to respond to a target presented at a novel location (Posner & Cohen, 1984). The attentional momentum theory is a recent view of how attention moves around the environment, and it provides an account for the IOR effect that does not rely on an inhibitory mechanism (Pratt, Spalek, & Bradshaw, 1999). The present paper supports the attentional momentum viewpoint in two ways: first, by replicating the finding that reaction times to targets at the uncued locations are not all the same (Pratt et al., 1999) and second, by showing that responses made to all locations on the cued side of fixation, and not just to the locations that attention had previously traversed, are slower than are responses made to locations on the opposite side of fixation. We also demonstrate that there is a directional bias to the IOR effect that results in the effect's being larger when attention moves in a left-to-right manner.     

The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that targets appearing at previously cued locations are more slowly responded to than targets appearing at previously uncued locations when a relatively long temporal interval occurs between the cue and target. This experiment was conducted to determine whether the magnitude of IOR is influenced by the type of preceding trial (cued or uncued) and/or the location of the cue/target on the previous trial. Although no effect of cue/target location is observed, there was a marked effect of previous trial type, as IOR was greater following an uncued trial relative to a cued trial. This effect was attributable to differences in the response time as a function of previous trial type: specifically, participants were faster to respond to cued and uncued trials when the previous trial type was identical.     

Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search

We investigated the role of spatial probabilities in target location during participants' performance of a visual search task. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that spatial probabilities could serve as a powerful attentional bias that produced faster detection of targets in high-probability locations than of those in low- or random-probability locations. The effect could not be explained by repetition priming alone. Moreover, responses to targets in low-probability locations were slowed only when a distractor was present in the high-probability location. In Experiments 3-5, we compared the effects of spatial probability with an explicit endogenous cue and a salient exogenous cue. Facilitation due to spatial probability was independent of any benefit afforded by the explicit endogenous cue but interacted with the salient exogenous cue, such that the exogenous cue validity effect was compressed for targets in the high-probability location. Together, these results suggest that the spatial probabilities governing target location constitute a potent bias of visual processing and, as such, can be considered an attentional cue that differs from both typical explicit endogenous and salient exogenous cues.     

Object-based attentional selection and awareness of objects

This study examined whether object-based attentional selection depends on the observer's awareness of objects, using objects defined by perceptual completion. As an indicator of object-based attention, we studied the same-object advantage, where observers respond faster to a target within a cued object than within a noncued object. The same-object advantage was not found in the condition where observers were unaware of the objects (inattentional blindness). On the other hand, the same-object advantage was observed in the condition where observers were aware of the objects. These results suggest that the intensity of object representations can be influenced by observers’ awareness of objects, which affects the occurrence of object-based effects. We propose that attention/inattention (or awareness/unawareness) is graded and observers’ awareness of the objects might serve to boost an otherwise noisy/low signal representation for obtaining object-based effects.     

The spatial distribution of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that response times (RTs) are typically slower for targets at previously attended (cued) locations than for targets at novel (uncued) locations. Although previous research has indicated that IOR may spread beyond a cued location, the present study is the first to examine the spatial distribution of IOR with high spatial resolution over a large portion of the central visual field. This was done by using a typical IOR procedure (cue, delay, target) with 4 cue locations and 441 target locations (each separated by 1° of visual angle). The results indicate that IOR spreads beyond the cued location to affect the cued hemifield. However, the cues also produced a gradient of RTs throughout the visual field, with inhibition in the cued hemifield gradually giving way to facilitation in the hemifield opposite the cue.     

Attentional spreading in object-based attention: The roles of target–object integration and target presentation time

What is the best account to explain the object-based attentional benefit—that is, the spread of attention within an attended object or prioritization of search across possible target locations within an attended object? Using a task in which the location of the target was known with certainty, in the present study we systematically manipulated the type (letters or bites) and the presentation time (long or short) of the target and flankers in order to test the effects of target–object integration and target presentation time on object-based attention. The results showed that an object-based effect could appear when the target was a bite, no matter whether the target presentation time was long or short; but when the target was a letter, an object-based effect was only observed when the target presentation time was short enough. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the argument of attentional spreading in object-based attention. However, this spreading is moderated jointly by target–object integration and the target presentation time.     

Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency

Studies of the spatial distribution of visual attention have shown that attentional facilitation monotonically decreases in a graded fashion with increasing distance from an attended location. However, reaction time (RT) measures have typically shown broader gradients than have signal detection (SD) measures of perceptual sensitivity. It is not clear whether these differences have arisen because the stages of information processing indexed by RT measures are different from those indexed by SD measures, or whether these differences are due to methodological confounds in the SD studies. In the present set of experiments, the spatial distribution of attention was studied by using a luminance detection task in an endogenous cuing paradigm that was designed to permit accurate calculations of SD and RT measures for targets at cued and uncued locations. Subjects made target-present/absent decisions at one of six possible cued or uncued upper visual hemifield locations on each trial. The results from three experiments suggest that the differences between broad and focal attentional distributions are not the result of different stages of information processing indexed by RT measures as opposed to SD measures. Rather, the differing distributions appear to reflect variations in attentional allocation strategies induced by the perceptual requirements typical of RT paradigms as opposed to SD paradigms. These findings support numerous prior studies showing that spatial attention affects perceptual sensitivity and that the strategic allocation of attention is a highly flexible process.     

Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection

This study aimed to evaluate the type of attentional selection (location- and/or object-based) triggered by two different types of central noninformative cues: eye gaze and arrows. Two rectangular objects were presented in the visual field, and subjects' attention was directed to the end of a rectangle via the observation of noninformative directional arrows or eye gaze. Similar experiments with peripheral cues have shown an object-based effect: faster target identification when the target is presented on the cued object as compared to the uncued object, even when the distance between target and cue was the same. The three reported experiments aimed to compare the location- and object-based attentional orienting observed with arrows and eye gaze, in order to dissociate the orienting mechanisms underlying the two types of orienting cues. Results showed similar cueing effects on the cued versus oppositely cued locations for the two cue types, replicating several studies with nonpredictive gaze and arrow cues. However, a pure object-based effect occurred only when an arrow cue was presented, whereas a pure location-based effect was only found for eye-gaze cues. It is suggested that attention is nonspecifically directed to nearby objects when a noninformative arrow is used as cue, whereas it is selectively directed to a specific cued location when noninformative eye gaze is used. This may be mediated by theory of mind mechanisms.     

Effects of response priming and inhibition on movement planning and execution

The authors used a precueing method to examine the effects of response priming and inhibition on goal-directed action. Participants (N = 18) completed aiming movements to 1 of 2 locations following predictive (80% cued), nonpredictive (50% cued), and antipredictive (20% cued) precues at 1 of the 2 possible target locations. Consistent with previous research, participants responded more quickly to targets at cued locations than to targets at uncued locations in the 80% condition, and more quickly to targets presented at the uncued than to those presented at cued locations in the 50% and 20% conditions. As predicted by models of action-centered selective attention, movement trajectories deviated away from the cued location in the 50% condition. Movement trajectories were also altered in the 80% and the 20% conditions. Movements directed to the uncued location deviated away from the cued location in the 80% condition, whereas movements directed to the cued location deviated away from the uncued location in the 20% condition. The authors explain the latter trajectory results as a strategy of overcompensation.