Goal-driven modulation as a function of time in saccadic target selection

Four experiments were performed to investigate the contribution of goal-driven modulation in saccadic target selection as a function of time. Observers were required to make an eye movement to a prespecified target that was concurrently presented with multiple nontargets and possibly one distractor. Target and distractor were defined in different dimensions (orientation dimension and colour dimension in Experiment 1), or were both defined in the same dimension (i.e., both defined in the orientation dimension in Experiment 2, or both defined in the colour dimension in Experiments 3 and 4). The identities of target and distractor were switched over conditions. Speed–accuracy functions were computed to examine the full time course of selection in each condition. There were three major results. First, the ability to exert goal-driven control increased as a function of response latency. Second, this ability depended on the specific target–distractor combination, yet was not a function of whether target and distractor were defined within or across dimensions. Third, goal-driven control was available earlier when target and distractor were dissimilar than when they were similar. It was concluded that the influence of goal-driven control in visual selection is not all or none, but is of a continuous nature.     

Goal-driven modulation as a function of time in saccadic target selection

Four experiments were performed to investigate the contribution of goal-driven modulation in saccadic target selection as a function of time. Observers were required to make an eye movement to a prespecified target that was concurrently presented with multiple nontargets and possibly one distractor. Target and distractor were defined in different dimensions (orientation dimension and colour dimension in Experiment 1), or were both defined in the same dimension (i.e., both defined in the orientation dimension in Experiment 2, or both defined in the colour dimension in Experiments 3 and 4). The identities of target and distractor were switched over conditions. Speed-accuracy functions were computed to examine the full time course of selection in each condition. There were three major results. First, the ability to exert goal-driven control increased as a function of response latency. Second, this ability depended on the specific target-distractor combination, yet was not a function of whether target and distractor were defined within or across dimensions. Third, goal-driven control was available earlier when target and distractor were dissimilar than when they were similar. It was concluded that the influence of goal-driven control in visual selection is not all or none, but is of a continuous nature.     

The modulatory impact of reward and attention on global feature selection in human visual cortex

Reward powerfully influences human behaviour and perception, with reward effects being observed already on the level of basic sensory processing. Although reward-related modulations generally resemble those related to attentional selection, it is debated whether these effects indeed reflect the same selection operations. Here we focus on neuromagnetic indices of global colour-based attention in visual cortex, and ask whether reward elicits the same or separable underlying modulation effects. Observers performed a colour/orientation selection task where colour served to define the target as well as reward prospect. On each trial a target containing the target colour and one other colour was presented in the left visual field (VF) together with a bicoloured distractor in the right VF. Reward was delivered on correctly performed trials when the reward colour appeared in the target but not when it appeared in the distractor. The effect of global colour selection was assessed by comparing the brain response to the distractor depending on whether it contained the target colour, the reward colour, both, or neither. We observed that both the reward and target colour led to similar increases of the neuromagnetic response between ~200–260 ms originating from the same ventral extrastriate visual cortex areas, albeit slightly temporally lagged. Importantly, the response to the target and reward colour alone always added up to match the response size of their combined presentation. These results suggest that while reward and attention recruit the same global feature selection effects in extrastriate visual cortex, they are likely controlled by independent top-down influences.     

Age-related differences in selection by visual saliency

We examined the ability of older adults to select local and global stimuli varying in perceptual saliency—a task requiring nonspatial visual selection. Participants were asked to identify in separate blocks a target at either the global or the local level of a hierarchical stimulus, while the saliency of each level was varied (across different conditions, either the local or the global form was the more salient and relatively easier to identify). Older adults were less efficient than young adults in ignoring distractors that were higher in saliency than were targets, and this occurred across both the global and local levels of form. The increased effects of distractor saliency on older adults occurred even when the effects were scaled by overall differences in task performance. The data provide evidence for an age-related decline in nonspatial attentional selection of low-salient hierarchical stimuli, not determined by the (global or local) level at which selection was required. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding both the interaction between saliency and hierarchical processing and the effects of aging on nonspatial visual attention.     

Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search

Some points of criticism against the idea that attentional selection is controlled by bottom-up processing were dispelled by the attentional window account. The attentional window account claims that saliency computations during visual search are only performed for stimuli inside the attentional window. Therefore, a small attentional window may avoid attentional capture by salient distractors because it is likely that the salient distractor is located outside the window. In contrast, a large attentional window increases the chances of attentional capture by a salient distractor. Large and small attentional windows have been associated with efficient (parallel) and inefficient (serial) search, respectively. We compared the effect of a salient color singleton on visual search for a shape singleton during efficient and inefficient search. To vary search efficiency, the nontarget shapes were either similar or dissimilar with respect to the shape singleton. We found that interference from the color singleton was larger with inefficient than efficient search, which contradicts the attentional window account. While inconsistent with the attentional window account, our results are predicted by computational models of visual search. Because of target–nontarget similarity, the target was less salient with inefficient than efficient search. Consequently, the relative saliency of the color distractor was higher with inefficient than with efficient search. Accordingly, stronger attentional capture resulted. Overall, the present results show that bottom-up control by stimulus saliency is stronger when search is difficult, which is inconsistent with the attentional window account.     

Differential activation of a central inhibition system by motion and colour distractors

ABSTRACT

The selection of relevant stimuli is partially achieved through inhibition of irrelevant distractors. Using the distractor induced blindness (DIB) paradigm, we investigated whether these inhibitory processes depend on the feature dimension that is used to define distractors. Following a pilot study that found motion and colour targets to be comparably salient, we analysed distractor effects of those two feature dimensions. In both feature dimensions, an inhibition effect depended on the number of distractors. Colour, however, was more sensitive to distractor episodes as compared to motion: The level of inhibition was more pronounced, and its activation required less distractors. The results of a control experiment provided further evidence that, in fact, the feature dimension -instead of design differences between tasks- is responsible for this observation. The dimension-sensitive bias in the activation of a central inhibition system may be attributed to a differential processing of visual signals, depending on their behavioural relevance.     

Limitations in attending to a feature value for overriding stimulus-driven interference

Six experiments were conducted to examine the effect of knowledge of a target for overriding stimulus-driven interference in simple search tasks (Experiments 1-3) and compound search tasks (Experiments 4-6). In simple search when the target differed from nontargets in orientation, a singleton distractor that had an orientation equivalent to that of a target interfered with search for the target. When the singleton distractor was less salient than the target with respect to the target-defining feature, it still caused interference. Such within-dimensional, nonsaliency-based interference also occurred in compound search tasks. In contrast, no interference occurred when a singleton distractor was defined in cross-dimension in a simple search task. When a compound search task was used, the salient distractor interfered with the search for a less salient target. These results are discussed in terms of their applicability to existing models and the limitations of top-down penetrability of a feature processing stage.     

Does a salient distractor capture attention early in processing?

Kim and Cave (1999) used spatial probes in order to measure the effects of bottom-up and top-down factors on the allocation of spatial attention over time. Subjects searched for a target with a unique shape, with a uniquely colored distractor present on each trial. The singleton distractor captured attention early in processing, whereas attention homed in on the target’s location later on. Kim and Cave (1999) concluded that top–down factors cannot prevent the presence of a salient distractor from delaying target selection. The present study tested the idea that such results were obtained only because subjects adopted the strategy of searching for the most salient item. Kim and Cave’s (1999) finding was replicated in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, instead of a feature search, subjects performed a conjunction search—that is, a task that could not be performed using a salience–based strategy. Probe response times were longest at the salient distractor’s location at both the short and the long stimulus onset asynchronies. These results suggest that, early in processing, top–down factors can exert their influence and prevent the capture of attention by a salient distractor.     

Salience detection and attentional capture

There is an ongoing debate to what extent irrelevant salient information attracts an observer’s attention and is processed without the observer intending to do so. The present experiment investigated attentional capture of salient but irrelevant objects and compared target processing in target-and-distractor to target-only trials. Both form and color singletons were used and their target–distractor assignment was interchanged. Thus the general impact of the presence of a salient distractor on target processing could be separated from the impact of the specific target–distractor salience relation. Response latencies and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were registered. Results showed a strong influence of the mere presence of an irrelevant distractor on target processing: both the visual N1 and the posterior N2 showed better attention focusing in target-only trials compared to target-and-distractor trials. Response times and N2pc results, on the other hand, showed evidence in favor of salience-specific attention allocation. N2pc results indicated that the distractor affected the allocation of attention in trials with form targets and color distractors but not in the opposite condition. Taken together, results showed a general impact of irrelevant salient singletons on search behavior when they were presented simultaneously with relevant singletons. The allocation of focal attention (as mirrored by the N2pc), however, was also influenced by the specific target–distractor salience relation.     

The role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection

Four experiments were conducted to investigate the role of stimulus-driven control in saccadic eye movements. Participants were required to make a speeded saccade toward a predefined target presented concurrently with multiple nontargets and possibly 1 distractor. Target and distractor were either equally salient (Experiments 1 and 2) or not (Experiments 3 and 4). The results uniformly demonstrated that fast eye movements were completely stimulus driven, whereas slower eye movements were goal driven. These results are in line with neither a bottom-up account nor a top-down notion of visual selection. Instead, they indicate that visual selection is the outcome of 2 independent processes, one stimulus driven and the other goal driven, operating in different time windows.     

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.     

Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action

In a series of three experiments requiring selection of real objects for action, we investigated whether characteristics of the planned action and/or the “affordances” of target and distractor objects affected interference caused by distractors. In all ofthe experiments, the target object was selectedon the basis of colour and was presented alone or with a distractor object. We examined the effect of type of response (button press, grasping, or pointing), object affordances (compatibility with the acting hand, affordances for grasping or pointing), and target/distractor positions (left or right) on distractor interference (reaction time differences between trials with and without distractors). Different patterns of distractor interference were associated with different motor responses. In the button-press conditions of each experiment, distractor interference was largely determined by perceptual salience (e.g., proximity to initial visual fixation). In contrast, in tasks requiring action upon the objects in the array, distractors with handles caused greater interference than those without handles, irrespective of whether the intended action was pointing or grasping. Additionally, handled distractors were relatively more salient when their affordances for grasping were strong (handle direction compatible with the acting hand) than when affordances were weak. These data suggest that attentional highlighting of specific target and distractor features is a function of intended actions.     

The influence of a salient distractor in object-substitution masking

It remains unclear whether a salient distractor directly affects performance accuracy and the perceptual resolution of a target. In order to investigate this issue, the present study employed object substitution masking (OSM) to index perceptual hypothesis testing of a target. Trailing-mask duration of the four-dot mask was varied to investigate how the representation of the masked target decayed over time. Participants responded to the presence of a vertical line on a target ring that was isolated by a four-dot mask while an irrelevant salient distractor was presented in a subset of trials. The results revealed that the salient distractor only impacted performance when the mask and target offset concurrently (Experiment 1) or at short mask durations (Experiment 2). At longer mask durations performance in the distractor present condition was identical to performance in the distractor absent condition, suggesting that involuntary capture of attention did not affect OSM. These results show that the perceptual resolution of a masked target can operate independently of involuntary attentional selection.     

Cross-dimensional interference and cross-trial inhibition

In two experiments, we examined whether one source of cross-dimensional interference in visual search involves cross-trial position priming. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated cross-dimensional interference in search for an orientation-defined target: Search for a left-tilted target among right-tilted non-targets was disrupted by the presence of a singleton color distractor. In all conditions, search was facilitated when a target was presented at the same position as a target in the previous trial (positive position priming). In addition, there were negative effects of position priming on orientation targets that fell on the same side as singleton distractors on the previous trial. In Experiment 2, to examine the impact of negative position priming on cross-dimensional interference, trials with and without singleton distractors were presented in a single trial block. The chance of a singleton distractor's being present on a preceding trial was then equated across displays when the distractor was and when it was not subsequently present. Cross-dimensional interference was eliminated under this mixed presentation condition, suggesting that the cost of cross-dimensional interference was not determined by the stimulus-driven factors in the current trial, at least when a limited number of target and distractor locations was used. We conclude that top-down selection is possible during visual search, and this leads to inhibition of the location of salient distractors. The cost of this is slowed detection of targets at inhibited locations on subsequent trials.     

Attentional selection of objects or features: evidence from a modified search task

Three experiments examined the domain of visual selective attention (i.e., feature-based selection vs. object-based selection). Experiment 1 extended the requirements of the visual search task by requiring a feature discrimination response to target elements presented for short durations (30-105 msec). Targets were embedded in 47 distractor elements and were defined by either a distinct color or a distinct orientation. Observers made a discrimination response to either the target's color or its orientation. When the target-defining feature and the feature to be discriminated were the same (matched conditions), accuracy was enhanced relative to when these features belonged to separate dimensions (mismatched conditions). In Experiment 2, similar results were found in a task in which the target-defining dimension varied from trial to trial and observers performed both color and orientation discriminations on every trial. The results from these two experiments are consistent with feature-based attentional selection, but not with object-based selection. Experiment 3 extended these findings by showing that the effect is rooted in the overlap between target and distractor values in the stimulus set. The results are discussed in the context of recent models of visual selective attention.     

The effect of feature discriminability on the intertrial inhibition of focused attention

Identifying the shape of a colour oddball is faster when the distractor colour is viewed in the preceding target-absent trial and slower when the target colour is previewed, an intertrial effect known as the distractor previewing effect (DPE). We tested the effect of feature discriminability on the DPE. In Experiment 1, we determined the interitem discriminability of two colour pairs and two shape pairs. In Experiments 2 and 3, we measured DPEs with these set of target–distractor discriminability pairs. Our results showed that when the defining features allow for efficient parallel search, the a priori degree of interitem discriminability did not modulate the DPE. The results suggest the DPE does not arise as a strictly bottom-up modulation of saliency of the search-relevant features but reflects an attentional bias aimed at preventing attention from revisiting recently rejected “search features”. The underlying mechanism of this attentional bias is discussed.     

Distractor ratio influences patterns of eye movements during visual search

We examined the flexibility of guidance in a conjunctive search task by manipulating the ratios between different types of distractors. Participants were asked to decide whether a target was present or absent among distractors sharing either colour or shape. Results indicated a strong effect of distractor ratio on search performance. Shorter latency to move, faster manual response, and fewer fixations per trial were observed at extreme distractor ratios. The distribution of saccadic endpoints also varied flexibly as a function of distractor ratio. When there were very few same-colour distractors, the saccadic selectivity was biased towards the colour dimension. In contrast, when most of the distractors shared colour with the target, the saccadic selectivity was biased towards the shape dimension. Results are discussed within the framework of the guided search model.     

Current versus past ambiguity in intertrial priming

Visual search is speeded when the target is repeated from trial to trial compared to when it changes, suggesting that selective attention learns from previous events. Such intertrial effects are stronger when there is more competition for selection, for example in ambiguous displays where the target is accompanied by a salient distractor. Here we investigate whether this is because the competition strengthens the learning itself, or because it allows for a learned representation to exert a greater effect. The results point to the latter. Observers looked for a colour-defined target that could repeat or change from trial to trial. A salient distractor could be present on the current trial, the previous trial, both, or neither. Intertrial effects were greater when a distractor was present on the current trial, suggesting that a primed target representation is more beneficial under conditions of competition. In contrast, distractor presence on the previous trial had no effects whatsoever, indicating that the learning process itself is not affected by competition. This suggests that the source of the learning resides at postselection stages, whereas the effects may occur at the perceptual level.     

Effects of unilateral distractors: A comparison of eye movement and key press responses

We compared the effects of a unilateral distractor on the latencies of voluntary eye movements and key press responses in order to elucidate some of the differences between these two types of response with respect to processing distractors. On each trial, participants indicated the colour of a central patch by making a left or a right response. The colour of the distractor either matched the target colour or matched the colour associated with the incorrect response. Similarly, the side of the distractor corresponded to the side of either the correct or the incorrect response. The results showed that side congruency exerted a main effect only on eye movement responses, but colour congruency affected eye movement and key press responses similarly. Moreover, when we made the target more distinct from the distractor, only distractors that appeared on the same side as the response elicited a colour congruency effect, for both response modalities. Wepropose that (1) the appearance of the distractor activates oculomotor cells, which facilitate a subsequent eye movement with the same direction vector, (2) the distinctiveness of the target determines whether colour and side congruency interact, and (3) spatial codes mediate the interaction between colour and side congruency that occurs when the target is sufficiently distinct from the distractor.     

Quantifying the contribution of low-level saliency to human eye movements in dynamic scenes

We investigated the contribution of low-level saliency to human eye movements in complex dynamic scenes. Eye movements were recorded while naive observers viewed a heterogeneous collection of 50 video clips (46,489 frames; 4-6 subjects per clip), yielding 11,916 saccades of amplitude ≥2°. A model of bottom-up visual attention computed instantaneous saliency at the instant each saccade started and at its future endpoint location. Median model-predicted saliency was 45% the maximum saliency, a significant factor 2.03 greater than expected by chance. Motion and temporal change were stronger predictors of human saccades than colour, intensity, or orientation features, with the best predictor being the sum of all features. There was no significant correlation between model-predicted saliency and duration of fixation. A majority of saccades were directed to a minority of locations reliably marked as salient by the model, suggesting that bottom-up saliency may provide a set of candidate saccade target locations, with the final choice of which location of fixate more strongly determined top-down.