Does conspicuity enhance distraction? Saliency and eye landing position when searching for objects

While visual saliency may sometimes capture attention, the guidance of eye movements in search is often dominated by knowledge of the target. How is the search for an object influenced by the saliency of an adjacent distractor? Participants searched for a target amongst an array of objects, with distractor saliency having an effect on response time and on the speed at which targets were found. Saliency did not predict the order in which objects in target-absent trials were fixated. The within-target landing position was distributed around a modal position close to the centre of the object. Saliency did not affect this position, the latency of the initial saccade, or the likelihood of the distractor being fixated, suggesting that saliency affects the allocation of covert attention and not just eye movements.     

The target effect: Visual memory for unnamed search targets

Search targets are typically remembered much better than other objects even when they are viewed for less time. However, targets have two advantages that other objects in search displays do not have: They are identified categorically before the search, and finding them represents the goal of the search task. The current research investigated the contributions of both of these types of information to the long-term visual memory representations of search targets. Participants completed either a predefined search or a unique-object search in which targets were not defined with specific categorical labels before searching. Subsequent memory results indicated that search target memory was better than distractor memory even following ambiguously defined searches and when the distractors were viewed significantly longer. Superior target memory appears to result from a qualitatively different representation from those of distractor objects, indicating that decision processes influence visual memory.     

Effects of viewing time,fixations, and viewing strategies on visual memory for briefly presented natural objects

We investigated the impact of viewing time and fixations on visual memory for briefly presented natural objects. Participants saw a display of eight natural objects arranged in a circle and used a partial report procedure to assign one object to the position it previously occupied during stimulus presentation. At the longest viewing time of 7,000 ms or 10 fixations, memory performance was significantly higher than at the shorter times. This increase was accompanied by a primacy effect, suggesting a contribution of another memory component—for example, visual long-term memory (VLTM). We found a very limited beneficial effect of fixations on objects; fixated objects were only remembered better at the shortest viewing times. Our results revealed an intriguing difference between the use of a blocked versus an interleaved experimental design. When trial length was predictable, in the blocked design, target fixation durations increased with longer viewing times. When trial length was unpredictable, fixation durations stayed the same for all viewing lengths. Memory performance was not affected by this design manipulation, thus also supporting the idea that the number and duration of fixations are not closely coupled to memory performance.     

The effect of spatial and nonspatial contextual information on visual object memory

Recent research has found visual object memory can be stored as part of a larger scene representation rather than independently of scene context. The present study examined how spatial and nonspatial contextual information modulate visual object memory. Two experiments tested participants’ visual memory by using a change detection task in which a target object's orientation was either the same as it appeared during initial viewing or changed. In addition, we examined the effect of spatial and nonspatial contextual manipulations on change detection performance. The results revealed that visual object representations can be maintained reliably after viewing arrays of objects. Moreover, change detection performance was significantly higher when either spatial or nonspatial contextual information remained the same in the test image. We concluded that while processing complex visual stimuli such as object arrays, visual object memory can be stored as part of a comprehensive scene representation, and both spatial and nonspatial contextual changes modulate visual memory retrieval and comparison.     

Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: evidence from eye movements

When observers search for a target object, they incidentally learn the identities and locations of "background" objects in the same display. This learning can facilitate search performance, eliciting faster reaction times for repeated displays. Despite these findings, visual search has been successfully modeled using architectures that maintain no history of attentional deployments; they are amnesic (e.g., Guided Search Theory). In the current study, we asked two questions: 1) under what conditions does such incidental learning occur? And 2) what does viewing behavior reveal about the efficiency of attentional deployments over time? In two experiments, we tracked eye movements during repeated visual search, and we tested incidental memory for repeated nontarget objects. Across conditions, the consistency of search sets and spatial layouts were manipulated to assess their respective contributions to learning. Using viewing behavior, we contrasted three potential accounts for faster searching with experience. The results indicate that learning does not result in faster object identification or greater search efficiency. Instead, familiar search arrays appear to allow faster resolution of search decisions, whether targets are present or absent.     

You’re looking for what? Comparing search for familiar,nameable objects to search for unfamiliar,novel objects

Searching for items in one’s environment often includes considerable reliance on semantic knowledge. The present study examines the importance of semantic information in visual and memory search, especially with respect to whether the items reside in long-term or working memory. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in hybrid visual memory search for items that were either highly familiar or novel. Importantly, the relatively large number of targets in this hybrid search task necessitated that targets be stored in some form of long-term memory. We found that search for familiar objects was more efficient than search for novel objects. In Experiment 2, we investigated search for familiar versus novel objects when the number of targets was low enough to be stored in working memory. We also manipulated how often participants in Experiment 2 were required to update their target (every trial vs. every block) in order to control for target templates that were stored in long-term memory as a result of repeated exposure over trials. We found no differences in search efficiency for familiar versus novel objects when templates were stored in working memory. Our results suggest that while semantic information may provide additional individuating features that are useful for object recognition in hybrid search, this information could be irrelevant or even distracting when searching for targets stored in working memory.     

Words,shape, visual search and visual working memory in 3‐year‐old children

Do words cue children's visual attention, and if so, what are the relevant mechanisms? Across four experiments, 3‐year‐old children (N = 163) were tested in visual search tasks in which targets were cued with only a visual preview versus a visual preview and a spoken name. The experiments were designed to determine whether labels facilitated search times and to examine one route through which labels could have their effect: By influencing the visual working memory representation of the target. The targets and distractors were pictures of instances of basic‐level known categories and the labels were the common name for the target category. We predicted that the label would enhance the visual working memory representation of the target object, guiding attention to objects that better matched the target representation. Experiments 1 and 2 used conjunctive search tasks, and Experiment 3 varied shape discriminability between targets and distractors. Experiment 4 compared the effects of labels to repeated presentations of the visual target, which should also influence the working memory representation of the target. The overall pattern fits contemporary theories of how the contents of visual working memory interact with visual search and attention, and shows that even in very young children heard words affect the processing of visual information.     

Top-down effects of semantic knowledge in visual search are modulated by cognitive but not perceptual load

Moores, Laiti, and Chelazzi (2003) found semantic interference from associate competitors during visual object search, demonstrating the existence of top-down semantic influences on the deployment of attention to objects. We examined whether effects of semantically related competitors (same-category members or associates) interacted with the effects of perceptual or cognitive load. We failed to find any interaction between competitor effects and perceptual load. However, the competitor effects increased significantly when participants were asked to retain one or five digits in memory throughout the search task. Analyses of eye movements and viewing times showed that a cognitive load did not affect the initial allocation of attention but rather the time it took participants to accept or reject an object as the target. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of conceptual short-term memory and visual attention.     

工作记忆表征捕获眼动中的颜色优先性

刺激属性所具有的引导效力在工作记忆表征自上而下地引导注意捕获过程中起重要作用, 已有研究表明工作记忆表征的颜色属性在引导注意时具有一定的优势。研究采用工作记忆任务与视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 结合眼动追踪技术, 通过设置具有较强引导效力的颜色属性与朝向属性进行直接竞争的实验条件, 进一步考察工作记忆表征的颜色属性是否依然具有优先性。实验1发现工作记忆表征的颜色属性与朝向属性同时竞争眼动捕获时, 颜色属性表现出较强的优势, 而朝向属性单独呈现时并未表现出任何捕获效应。实验2与3进一步证实了颜色属性捕获眼动的优先性, 即当颜色属性在面临作为靶子属性的朝向属性的竞争时, 依然能捕获更多的注视点。这些结果直接证实了工作记忆表征的颜色属性在工作记忆表征的捕获眼动的过程中具有较强的引导效力, 相对于其他刺激属性(如朝向、形状)更具有优先性。     

工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择的眼动研究

工作记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择？目前实验结果尚不一致。有研究者认为能否观察到注意引导效应取决于视觉搜索类型。研究采用工作记忆任务与视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 结合眼动追踪技术, 对不同视觉搜索类型下的注意引导效应进行验证。实验1结果发现, 不管视觉搜索任务的靶子是否变化, 在早期的眼动指标上都发现了显著的注意引导效应, 但注意引导效应在靶子固定的视觉搜索任务下表现得更强。实验2在平衡两种视觉搜索任务中的工作记忆负载后发现, 两种视觉搜索任务下都出现了显著的注意引导效应, 但没有发现实验1中所出现的任务间差异。实验结果否定了视觉搜索类型对注意引导效应的决定性影响, 同时也提示工作记忆负载可能在注意引导效应中起重要作用。     

Attentional capture of objects referred to by spoken language

Participants saw a small number of objects in a visual display and performed a visual detection or visual-discrimination task in the context of task-irrelevant spoken distractors. In each experiment, a visual cue was presented 400 ms after the onset of a spoken word. In experiments 1 and 2, the cue was an isoluminant color change and participants generated an eye movement to the target object. In experiment 1, responses were slower when the spoken word referred to the distractor object than when it referred to the target object. In experiment 2, responses were slower when the spoken word referred to a distractor object than when it referred to an object not in the display. In experiment 3, the cue was a small shift in location of the target object and participants indicated the direction of the shift. Responses were slowest when the word referred to the distractor object, faster when the word did not have a referent, and fastest when the word referred to the target object. Taken together, the results demonstrate that referents of spoken words capture attention.     

Incidental and intentional visual memory: What memories are and are not affected by encoding tasks?

Prior research into the impact of encoding tasks on visual memory (Castelhano & Henderson, 2005) indicated that incidental and intentional encoding tasks led to similar memory performance. The current study investigated whether different encoding tasks impacted visual memories equally for all types of objects in a conjunction search (e.g., targets, colour distractors, object category distractors, or distractors unrelated to the target). In sequences of pictures, participants searched for prespecified targets (e.g., green apple; Experiment 1), memorized all objects (Experiment 2), searched for specified targets while memorizing all objects (Experiment 3), searched for postidentified targets (Experiment 4), or memorized all objects with one object prespecified (Experiment 5). Encoding task significantly improved visual memory for targets and led to worse memory for unrelated distractors, but did not influence visual memory of distractors that were related to the target's colour or object category. The differential influence of encoding task indicates that the relative importance of the object both positively and negatively influences the memory retained.     

Object–scene inconsistencies do not capture gaze: evidence from the flash-preview moving-window paradigm

In the present study, we investigated the influence of object-scene relationships on eye movement control during scene viewing. We specifically tested whether an object that is inconsistent with its scene context is able to capture gaze from the visual periphery. In four experiments, we presented rendered images of naturalistic scenes and compared baseline consistent objects with semantically, syntactically, or both semantically and syntactically inconsistent objects within those scenes. To disentangle the effects of extrafoveal and foveal object-scene processing on eye movement control, we used the flash-preview moving-window paradigm: A short scene preview was followed by an object search or free viewing of the scene, during which visual input was available only via a small gaze-contingent window. This method maximized extrafoveal processing during the preview but limited scene analysis to near-foveal regions during later stages of scene viewing. Across all experiments, there was no indication of an attraction of gaze toward object-scene inconsistencies. Rather than capturing gaze, the semantic inconsistency of an object weakened contextual guidance, resulting in impeded search performance and inefficient eye movement control. We conclude that inconsistent objects do not capture gaze from an initial glimpse of a scene.     

Strategic and automatic effects of visual working memory on attention in visual search

Previous research indicates that visual attention can be automatically captured by sensory inputs that match the contents of visual working memory. However, Woodman and Luck (2007) showed that information in working memory can be used flexibly as a template for either selection or rejection according to task demands. We report two experiments that extend their work. Participants performed a visual search task while maintaining items in visual working memory. Memory items were presented for either a short or long exposure duration immediately prior to the search task. Memory was tested by a change-detection task immediately afterwards. On a random half of trials items in memory matched either one distractor in the search task (Experiment 1) or three (Experiment 2). The main result was that matching distractors speeded or slowed target detection depending on whether memory items were presented for a long or short duration. These effects were more in evidence with three matching distractors than one. We conclude that the influence of visual working memory on visual search is indeed flexible but is not solely a function of task demands. Our results suggest that attentional capture by perceptual inputs matching information in visual working memory involves a fast automatic process that can be overridden by a slower top-down process of attentional avoidance.     

Marking rejected distractors: A gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search

There is a debate among search theorists as to whether search exploits a memory for rejected distractors. We addressed this question by monitoring eye movements and explicitly marking objects visited by gaze during search. If search is memoryless, markers might be used to reduce distractor reinspections and improve search efficiency, relative to a no-marking baseline. However, if search already uses distractor memory, there should be no differences between marking and no-marking conditions. In four experiments, with stimuli ranging from Os and Qs to realistic scenes, two consistent data patterns emerged: (1) Marking rejected distractors produced no systematic benefit for search efficiency, as measured by reinspections, reaction times, or errors, and (2) distractor reinspection rates were, overall, extremely low. These results suggest that search uses a memory for rejected distractors, at least in those many real-world search tasks in which gaze is free to move.     

Learning in repeated visual search

Visual search (e.g., finding a specific object in an array of other objects) is performed most effectively when people are able to ignore distracting nontargets. In repeated search, however, incidental learning of object identities may facilitate performance. In three experiments, with over 1,100 participants, we examined the extent to which search could be facilitated by object memory and by memory for spatial layouts. Participants searched for new targets (real-world, nameable objects) embedded among repeated distractors. To make the task more challenging, some participants performed search for multiple targets, increasing demands on visual working memory (WM). Following search, memory for search distractors was assessed using a surprise two-alternative forced choice recognition memory test with semantically matched foils. Search performance was facilitated by distractor object learning and by spatial memory; it was most robust when object identity was consistently tied to spatial locations and weakest (or absent) when object identities were inconsistent across trials. Incidental memory for distractors was better among participants who searched under high WM load, relative to low WM load. These results were observed when visual search included exhaustive-search trials (Experiment 1) or when all trials were self-terminating (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, stimulus exposure was equated across WM load groups by presenting objects in a single-object stream; recognition accuracy was similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. Together, the results suggest that people incidentally generate memory for nontarget objects encountered during search and that such memory can facilitate search performance.     

Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search

We explored incidental retention of visual details of encountered objects during search. Participants searched for conjunction targets in 32 arrays of 12 pictures of real-world objects and then performed a token discrimination task that examined their memory for visual details of the targets and distractors from the search task. The results indicate that even though participants had not been instructed to memorize the objects, the visual details of search targets and distractor objects related to the targets were retained after the search. Distractor objects unrelated to the search target were remembered more poorly. Eye-movement measures indicated that the objects that were remembered were looked at more frequently during search than those that were not remembered. These results provide support that detailed visual information is included incidentally in the visual representation of an object after the object is no longer in view.     

Revisiting the looking at nothing phenomenon: Visual and semantic biases in memory search

When visual stimuli remain present during search, people spend more time fixating objects that are semantically or visually related to the target instruction than looking at unrelated objects. Are these semantic and visual biases also observable when participants search within memory? We removed the visual display prior to search while continuously measuring eye movements towards locations previously occupied by objects. The target absent trials contained objects that were either visually or semantically related to the target instruction. When the overall mean proportion of fixation time was considered, we found biases towards the location previously occupied by the target, but failed to find biases towards visually or semantically related objects. However, in two experiments the pattern of biases towards the target over time provided a reliable predictor for biases towards the visually and semantically related objects. We therefore conclude that visual and semantic representations alone can guide eye movements in memory search, but that orienting biases are weak when the stimuli are no longer present.     

Time-dependent forgetting in visual short-term memory

ABSTRACT

Whether visual short-term memory can be lost over an unfilled delay, in line with time-dependent forgetting, is controversial and prior work has yielded mixed results. The present study explored time-dependent forgetting in visual short-term memory in relation to other factors. In three experiments, participants compared single target and probe objects over a 2 s or 10 s retention interval. The objects across trials were either similar or dissimilar (Experiment 1) and had to be remembered in the presence of an additional distractor (Experiment 2) or under conditions where the amount of time separating trials varied (Experiment 3). In all experiments, the retention interval manipulation made the biggest contribution to performance, with accuracy decreasing as the retention interval was lengthened from 2 s to 10 s. These results pose problems for interference and temporal distinctiveness models of memory but are compatible with temporal forgetting mechanisms such as decay.