Inhibitory guidance in visual search: The case of movement–form conjunctions

We used a probe-dot procedure to examine the roles of excitatory attentional guidance and distractor suppression in search for movement-form conjunctions. Participants in Experiment?1 completed a conjunction (moving X amongst moving Os and static Xs) and two single-feature (moving X amongst moving Os, and static X amongst static Os) conditions. "Active" participants searched for the target, whereas "passive" participants viewed the displays without responding. Subsequently, both groups located (left or right) a probe dot appearing in either an occupied or an unoccupied location. In the conjunction condition, the active group located probes presented on static distractors more slowly than probes presented on moving distractors, reversing the direction of the difference found within the passive group. This disadvantage for probes on static items was much stronger in conjunction than in single-feature search. The same pattern of results was replicated in Experiment?2, which used a go/no-go procedure. Experiment?3 extended the go/no-go procedure to the case of search for a static target and revealed increased probe localisation times as a consequence of active search, primarily for probes on moving distractor items. The results demonstrated attentional guidance by inhibition of distractors in conjunction search.     

Motion coherence and conjunction search: implications for guided search theory.

Feature integration theory has recently been revised with two proposals that visual conjunction search can be parallel under some circumstances--either because items with nontarget features are inhibited, or because items with target features are excited. We examined whether excitatory or inhibitory guidance controlled conjunction search for an X oscillating in one direction among Os oscillating in that direction and Xs oscillating in another. Search was affected by whether items oscillated in phase with each other, and it was exceptionally difficult when items with target motion moved out of phase with each other and items with nontarget motion moved out of phase. The results suggest that conjunction search can be guided both by excitation of target features and by inhibition of nontarget features.     

The visual control of aimed hand movements to stationary and moving targets.

The present study attempted to determine if during short-duration movements visual feedback can be processed in order to make adjustments to changes in the environment. The effect that varying the importance of monitoring target position has on the relative importance of vision of hand and vision of target (Carlton 1981a; Whiting and Cockerill 1974) was also examined. Subjects performed short- (150 ms) and longer-duration (330 ms) aimed hand movements under four visual feedback conditions (lights-on/lights-off by target-on/target-off) to stationary and moving targets. For the lights-off and target-off conditions, the lights and target, respectively, were extinguished 50 ms after movement initiation. For all moving-target conditions, the target started to move as the movement was initiated. Subjects were able to process visual information in 165 ms, as movement endpoints were biased in the direction of target motion for movements of this duration. Removing visual feedback 50 ms after movement initiation did not alter this finding. Subjects performed equally well with target and lights on or off, independent of whether the target remained stationary or moved. Presumably, during the first 50 ms of the movement subjects received sufficient visual information to aid in movement control.     

Effects of distraction on visual enumeration in children and adults

Speeded enumeration of visual stimuli typically produces a bilinear function, with a shallow subitizing rate (<100 ms/item) up to 3-4 items (subitizing span) and a steeper counting rate (~300 ms/item) thereafter. FINST theory (L. M. Trick & Z. W. Pylyshyn, 1993, 1994) suggests that subitizing of targets is possible in the presence of distractors if attention is not required for target detection, but this has not been tested in children. The present study explored enumeration without distractors (Os alone) and with distractors (Os among Xs) in 35 children aged 6-11 years and 17 adults. Subitizing span increased significantly from childhood to adulthood, and counting rate increased significantly with age. Bilinear functions were significantly better than linear fits to the data for most children and adults both without distractors (97% and 100%, respectively) and with distractors (89% and 94%), consistent with their efficient visual search for a single O among multiple Xs. These findings are discussed in comparison with those from new modeling of earlier enumeration data from young and older adults, revealing striking asymmetries in subitizing with distractors between development and aging.     

Dual adaptation of apparent concomitant motion contingent on head rotation frequency

Perceived movement of a stationary visual stimulus during head motion was measured before and after adaptation intervals during which participants performed voluntary head oscillations while viewing a moving spot. During these intervals, participants viewed the spot stimulus moving alternately in the same direction as the head was moving during either .25- or 2.0-Hz oscillations, and then in the opposite direction as the head at the other of the two frequencies. Postadaptation measures indicated that the visual stimuli were perceived as stationary only if traveling in the same direction as that viewed during adaptation at the same frequency of head motion. Thus, opposite directions of spot motion were perceived as stationary following adaptation depending on head movement frequency. The results provide an example of the ability to establish dual (or “context-specific”) adaptations to altered visual—vestibular feedback.     

Position constancy during pursuit eye movement: An investigation of the filehne illusion

Experiments were performed to investigate the Filehne illusion, the apparent movement of the background during pursuit eye movements. In a dark room subjects tracked a luminous target as it moved at 3°/s or 10.5/s in front of an illuminated background which was either stationary or moved at a fraction of the target speed in the same or opposite direction. Subjects reported whether the background appeared to move and the direction of the movement. Results reveal only a partial loss of position constancy for the background during tracking. The stationary background is perceived to move slightly in the direction opposite to that in which the tracked target is moving. These results seemed best described as an instance of perceptual underconstancy and led to the speculation that the source of the illusion is an underestimation of the rate of pursuit eye movements. An experimental test of this hypothesis which produced supporting evidence is reported.     

Motion coherence and conjunction search: Implications for guided search theory

Feature integration theory has recently been revised with two proposals that visual conjunction search can be parallel under some circumstances—either because items with nontarget features are inhibited, or because items with target features are excited. We examined whether excitatory or inhibitory guidance controlled conjunction search for an X oscillating in one direction among Os oscillating in that direction and Xs oscillating in another. Search was affected by whether items oscillated in phase with each other, and it was exceptionally difficult when items with target motion moved out of phase with each otherand items with nontarget motion moved out of phase. The results suggest that conjunction search can be guided both by excitation of target features and by inhibition of nontarget features.     

Induced movement as nonveridical resolution of displacement ambiguity: Effect of enclosure and number of field elements

Four experiments on induced movement and induced stationariness are described. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that mere enclosure of a stationary spot in a moving frame does not necessarily result in induced movement. Nor does enclosure of a moving spot in a stationary frame necessarily result in perceived real movement of the spot. Duncker’s principles of enclosure is thus called into question. Two further experiments showed that both induced and perceived real movement of a spot are much more frequent when the frame is replaced by either two or more similar spots which enclose or flank the target spot. It can be concluded that the principle of enclosure obtains when the reference field consists of more than one element which move or remain stationary together. When such a field moves, it is the single, enclosed element which appears to move while the field itself appears stationary.     

Movement and focused attention: a failure to replicate.

Our original goal was to explore the nature of the grouping-by-movement phenomenon reported by Driver and Baylis (1989). In their studies, distractors that moved in common with a centrally located target had a larger influence on focused-attention performance than did more proximate but stationary distractors. These results seemed particularly important since they suggested, contrary to the predictions of space-based models of attention, that attention could be allocated to noncontiguous regions of the visual field. Their results also suggested mandatory processing of stimuli with common motion. Unfortunately, we were unable to replicate this grouping-by-movement effect. In the conditions of Experiment 1 in which we replicated Driver and Baylis's methodology, stationary distractors produced a larger response-compatibility effect than did the more distant distractors that moved in common with the target. In Experiment 2, we redundantly coded the centrally located target and the far distractors with common movement and color. However, the results were identical to those obtained in Experiment 1. The stationary near distractors that appeared in a different color from the target and the far distractors produced the largest response-compatibility effect. In a final experiment, we attempted to compensate for the reduced acuity of the moving distractors by adjusting their size by a cortical magnification factor. However, even with this manipulation, we found a larger response-compatibility effect for the stationary near distractors than for the moving distant distractors. Our results suggest that subjects are capable of selectively processing a target item that moves in common with distractors.     

Movement and focused attention: A failure to replicate

Our original goal was to explore the nature of the grouping-by-movement phenomenon reported by Driver and Baylis (1989). In their studies, distractors that moved in common with a centrally located target had a larger influence on focused-attention performance than did more proximate but stationary distractors. These results seemed particularly important since they suggested, contrary to the predictions of space-based models of attention, that attention could be allocated to noncontiguous regions of the visual field. Their results also suggested mandatory processing of stimuli with common motion. Unfortunately, we were unable to replicate this grouping-by-movement effect. In the conditions of Experiment 1 in which we replicated Driver and Baylis’s methodology, stationary distractors produced a larger response-compatibility effect than did the more distant distractors that moved in common with the target. In Experiment 2, we redundantly coded the centrally located target and the far distractors with common movement and color. However, the results were identical to those obtained in Experiment J. The stationary near distractors that appeared in a different color from the target and the far distractors produced the largest response-compatibility effect. In a final experiment, we attempted to compensate for the reduced acuity of the moving distractors by adjusting their size by a cortical magnification factor. However, even with this manipulation, we found a larger response-compatibility effect for the stationary near distractors than for the moving distant distractors. Our results suggest that subjects are capable of selectively processing a target item that moves in common with distractors.     

Response competition: a major source of interference in a tactile identification task.

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond "1" if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond "2" if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

Response competition: A major source of interference in a tactile identification task

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond “1” if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond “2” if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

Searching for conjunctively defined targets

It has recently been proposed that in searching for a target defined as a conjunction of two or more separable features, attention must be paid serially to each stimulus in a display. Support for this comes from studies in which subjects searched for a target that shared a single feature with each of two different kinds of distractor items (e.g., a red O in a field of black Os and red Ns). Reaction time increased linearly with display size. We argue that this design may obscure evidence of selectivity in search. In an experiment in which the numbers of the two distractors were unconfounded, we find evidence that subjects can search through specified subsets of stimuli. For example, subjects told to search through just the Os to find the red O target do so without searching through Ns. Implications of selective search are discussed.     

Visual search asymmetries in motion and optic flow fields

In visual search, items defined by a unique feature are found easily and efficiently. Search for a moving target among stationary distractors is one such efficient search. Search for a stationary target among moving distractors is markedly more difficult. In the experiments reported here, we confirm this finding and further show that searches for a stationary target within a structured flow field are more efficient than searches for stationary targets among distractors moving in random directions. The structured motion fields tested included uniform direction of motion, a radial flow field simulating observer forward motion, and a deformation flow field inconsistent with observer motion. The results using optic flow stimuli were not significantly different from the results obtained with other structured fields of distractors. The results suggest that the local properties of the flow fields rather than global optic flow properties are important for determining the efficiency of search for a stationary target.     

Visual search asymmetries in motion and optic flow fields.

In visual search, items defined by a unique feature are found easily and efficiently. Search for a moving target among stationary distractors is one such efficient search. Search for a stationary target among moving distractors is markedly more difficult. In the experiments reported here, we confirm this finding and further show that searches for a stationary target within a structured flow field are more efficient than searches for stationary targets among distractors moving in random directions. The structured motion fields tested included uniform direction of motion, a radial flow field simulating observer forward motion, and a deformation flow field inconsistent with observer motion. The results using optic flow stimuli were not significantly different from the results obtained with other structured fields of distractors. The results suggest that the local properties of the flow fields rather than global optic flow properties are important for determining the efficiency of search for a stationary target.     

Capture of kinesthesis by a competing cutaneous input

In four experiments, blindfolded participants were presented with pairs of stimuli simultaneously, one to each index finger. Participants moved one index finger, which was presented with cutaneous and/or kinesthetic stimuli, and this movement caused a raised line to move underneath the other, stationary index finger in a yoked manner. The stimuli were 180o rotations of each other (e.g., < and >), and thus when a < was traced with the moving finger, it caused a > to be felt at the stationary finger. When asked to report the experience, participants predominantly reported the cutaneous stimulus, seemingly being ignorant of the kinesthetic stimulus. This appears to be an intrahaptic capture phenomenon, which is of interest because it suggests that conflict between intrahaptic sensory stimuli can go unnoticed; sometimes we are unaware of how we moved, and sometimes we do not know what we touched. The results are interpreted in light of optimal integration, perceptual suppression, reafference suppression, and inattentional blindness.     

An acceleration illusion caused by underestimation of stimulus velocity during pursuit eye movements: Aubert-Fleischl revisited

When the eyes pursue a fixation point that sweeps across a moving background pattern, and the fixation point is suddenly made to stop, the ongoing motion of the background pattern seems to accelerate to a higher velocity. Experiment I showed that this acceleration illusion is not caused by the sudden change in (i) the relative velocity between background and fixation point, (ii) the velocity of the retinal image of the background pattern, or (iii) the motion of the retinal image of the rims of the CRT screen on which the experiment was carried out. In experiment II the magnitude of the illusion was quantified. It is strongest when background and eyes move in the same direction. When they move in opposite directions it becomes less pronounced (and may disappear) with higher background velocities. The findings are explained in terms of a model proposed by the first author, in which the perception of object motion and velocity derives from the interaction between retinal slip velocity information and the brain's 'estimate' of eye velocity in space. They illustrate that the classic Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon (a stimulus seems to be moving slower when pursued with the eyes than when moving in front of stationary eyes) is a special case of a more general phenomenon: whenever we make a pursuit eye movement we underestimate the velocity of all stimuli in our visual field which happen to move in the same direction as our eyes, or which move slowly in the direction opposite to our eyes.     

Visual Search for Conjunctions of Motion and Form: The Efficiency of Attention to Static versus Moving Items Depends on Practice

Visual search for some motion-form conjunctions can be performed in parallel. Yet, if the target is easy to discriminate from the nontargets (target line tilted 45 from the vertical), search can be easier for a moving than for a stationary target. Driver and McLeod (1992; Berger & McLeod, 1996) took this asymmetry to argue that gross aspects of form discrimination are performed within a motion filter thatrepresents only the moving items, whereas discrimination of stationary items (and all fine discrimination) relies on a static form system. However, recent (unsuccessful) attempts to replicate the asymmetry (Muller & Found, 1996; Muller & Maxwell, 1994) suggested that it may occur only early during task performance, due to participants having difficulty keeping the moving items out of the search for a stationary target (but not vice versa). This was confirmed by the present study, which investigated the effects of practice on search among the moving and stationary subset of items. The results suggest that attention to the stationary subsetis difficultinitially because participants cannotefficiently compensate for the natural bias of the motion filter to pass the moving items (rather than filter them out). This ability improves with practice. Thus, there is no fixed limit to performance with stationary targets and, consequently, no need to assume that any form discrimination is performed within the motion filter.     

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.     

Contextual influences of dimension, speed, and direction of motion on subjective time perception

Research has indicated that the direction of motion and the speed of motion can influence the subjective estimates of temporal duration of two-dimensional (2-D) stimuli expanding and contracting within the picture plane. In this study, we investigated whether the contextual cues of stimulus/movement-plane dimensionality (2-D stimuli with implied movement in the picture plane or depth-rendered “3-D” stimuli with implied movement in the depth plane) influence and interact with speed and implied movement direction during interval estimation. Participants viewed a series of standard stimulus durations followed by a test stimulus duration and determined whether the test and standard durations differed. The results indicated that moving stimuli were overestimated relative to stationary stimuli, regardless of the direction of motion or dimensionality. Also, faster-moving stimuli were overestimated relative to slower-moving stimuli. Importantly, an interaction between movement direction and dimensional cues indicated that the loom/recede distinction occurs for 2-D but not for 3-D stimuli. It is possible that the loom/recede distinction for the 2-D condition may be an artifact arising from reduced or from a lack of perceived motion in 2-D “recede” conditions, rather than a specific overestimation for looming stimuli.