Effects of luminance change in preview search: Offsets and onsets can be concurrently prioritized but not in isolation

Two experiments are performed to investigate how luminance change contributes to prioritized selection of new over old elements. Experiment 1 demonstrates that observers prioritize items that undergo a luminance change irrespective of the direction of that change. Experiment 2 shows that foreknowledge concerning the direction of luminance change signaling the target does not allow observers to prioritize the selection of luminance onsets over offsets and vice versa. The results suggest that prioritized selection of new over old elements is mediated by a general mechanism that is sensitive to luminance change, irrespective of its direction.     

Visual marking beside the mark: prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets

In a standard visual marking experiment, observers are presented with a display containing one set of elements (old elements) followed after a certain time interval by a second set of elements (new elements). The task of observers is to search for a target among the new elements. Typically, the time to find the target depends only on the number of new elements in the display and not on the number of old elements, showing that observers search only among the new elements. This effect of prioritizing new elements over old elements is explained in terms of top-down inhibition of old objects-that is, visual marking (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). The present study addressed whether this prioritizing is in fact mediated by top-down inhibition of old objects, as suggested by Watson and Humphreys (1997), or whether it is mediated by the abrupt onsets of the newly presented elements (Yantis & Jonides, 1984). In three experiments, the presentations of the old and new elements were or were not accompanied by a luminance change. The results showed that if new elements were equiluminant with the background, no visual marking occurred, suggesting that new elements must have a luminance onset in order to be prioritized over old elements. Implications for current theories on visual selection are discussed.     

Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets

In a standard visual marking experiment, observers are presented with a display containing one set of elements (old elements) followed after a certain time interval by a second set of elements (new elements). The task of observers is to search for a target among the new elements. Typically, the time to find the target depends only on the number of new elements in the display and not on the number of old elements, showing that observers search only among the new elements. This effect of prioritizing new elements over old elements is explained in terms of top-down inhibition of old objects—that is, visual marking (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). The present study addressed whether this prioritizing is in fact mediated by top-down inhibition of old objects, as suggested by Watson and Humphreys (1997), or whether it is mediated by the abrupt onsets of the newly presented elements (Yantis & Jonides, 1984). In three experiments, the presentations of the old and new elements were or were not accompanied by a luminance change. The results showed that if new elements were equiluminant with the background, no visual marking occurred, suggesting that new elements must have a luminance onset in order to be prioritized over old elements. Implications for current theories on visual selection are discussed.     

Prioritizing selection of new elements: bottom-up versus top-down control

Watson and Humphreys (1997) have proposed that prioritized selection of new over old elements occurs because observers can apply top-down inhibition to the locations of the old elements by a mechanism they refer to as visual marking. However, recent evidence has suggested that the top-down mechanism is questionable (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). In the present study, we investigated whether prioritized selection of new over old elements occurs in a bottom-up or a top-down fashion. Observers were presented with displays containing one set of elements (old elements) followed, after a certain time interval, by a second set of elements (new elements). The observers were instructed to search for the presence of a target that was presented with equal probability among the old and the new elements (Experiments 1 and 2) or twice as often among the old elements than among the new elements (Experiment 3). The results show that new elements were prioritized for selection over old ones even though the observers had no incentive to do so. The results suggest that prioritized selection of new over old elements is not mediated by a top-down inhibition process, as was proposed by Watson and Humphreys (1997). Instead, prioritization of new elements appears to be a bottom-up process. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of models of attentional control.     

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

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

Prioritized selection in visual search through onset capture and color inhibition: evidence from a probe-dot detection task

Observers performed a preview search task in which, on some trials, they had to indicate the presence of a briefly presented probe-dot. Probes could be presented on locations corresponding to old or new elements and prior to or after the presentation of the new elements. After the presentation of the new elements, probes were generally detected faster on new than on old locations, indicating prioritized selection of new elements. Prior to the presentation of the new elements, probes were detected faster on new than on old locations only when old and new elements differed in color. These results suggest that prioritized selection of new elements is mediated not by visual marking but by onset capture. Additionally, observers may apply color-based inhibition.     

Visual marking of old objects

Watson and Humphreys (1997) presented evidence that selection of new elements can be prioritized by on-line top-down attentional inhibition of old stimuli already in the visual field (visual marking). The experiments on which this evidence was based always presented old elements in green and new elements in blue. Because of this, instead of prioritizing new objects by inhibiting old objects, selection could have been based on color. The present experiment, which does not contain this confound, showed that visual marking is a strong and robust process that enables subjects to visually mark at least 15 old elements even when these elements have the same color as the new elements. The results indicate that preview of the elements is critical—not the fact that those elements contained a common feature.     

Prioritization by transients in visual search

There is an ongoing debate as to whether prioritizing new objects over old objects (the so-calledpreview benefit) is the result of top-down inhibition of old objects (i.e., visual marking; Watson & Humphreys, 1997) or attentional allocation to new objects, presented with a luminance transient (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). In the two experiments reported here, we tested whether prioritization by luminance transients alone can produce a subset-selective search similar to the preview effect. Subjects viewed multiobject displays while a subset of objects was briefly flashed. The subjects prioritized up to 14 flashed objects over at least 14 nonflashed objects. Since prioritization by luminance transients can produce a subsetselective search on its own, it may well play an important role in the preview benefit.     

Short-term visual storage

The delay between the offset of a briefly exposed array of letters and digits and the onset of an arrow pointing at one of the array positions was varied from 0 to 5000 msec. In addition, the luminance of the stimulus array was varied over three levels. The Ss reported the item in the position indicated by the arrow. Luminance, delay, and the luminance by delay interaction were all significant I Performance monotonically decreased from a delay of 0 msec to a delay of 250 msec, but the percent correct remained fairly constant from 250 msec to 5000 msec. With delays shorter than 250 msec, high luminance arrays showed better performance.     

Spatiotemporal segregation in visual search: evidence from parietal lesions

The mechanisms underlying segmentation and selection of visual stimuli over time were investigated in patients with posterior parietal damage. In a modified visual search task, a preview of old objects preceded search of a new set for a target while the old items remained. In Experiment 1, control participants ignored old and prioritized new items, but patients had severe difficulties finding the target (especially on the contralesional side). In Experiment 2, simplified displays yielded analogous results, ruling out search ease as a crucial factor in poor preview search. In Experiment 3, outlines around distractor groups (to aid segmentation) improved conjunction but not preview search, suggesting a specific deficit in spatiotemporal segmentation. Experiment 4 ruled out spatial disengagement problems as a factor. The data emphasize the role of spatiotemporal segmentation cues in preview search and the parietal lobe in the role of these cues to prioritize search of new stimuli.     

The time course of preview search with color-defined, not luminance-defined, stimuli

We examined the time course of preview search, using stimuli that were defined by color, but not by luminance changes. We demonstrate that, under these conditions, search performance in a preview condition improved selectively over time, relative to a baseline condition in which all the items appeared together. The data confirm earlier reports from Humphreys, Kyllinsbaek, et al. (2004) and Watson and Humphreys (1997), who used luminance-defined stimuli and showed a long time course to preview search. The data contradict Donk and Verburg (2004), who argued that the preview benefit was instantaneous but did not include baseline conditions with which to test for any influence of distractors equivalent to the old items in preview search, even under nonpreview conditions. The data support the proposal that the prioritization of new items in preview search is a time-consuming business.     

旧客体抑制和新客体捕获视角下预览效应的机制

预览效应是一种在已经存在的多个旧客体中优先选择多个新客体, 对新客体表现出优先加工的现象。文章综述了预览效应认知神经机制的两种主要观点：(1)旧客体抑制观点, 认为预览效应是由于对旧客体的抑制; (2)新客体突现捕获注意观点, 认为预览效应是由于新客体出现伴随着亮度突然增加捕获注意。这两种观点之间的主要争论在于：预览效应与新旧客体亮度变化的关系; 新旧客体的颜色关系是否影响对目标的搜索; 在一些因素的作用下, 旧客体形状变化是否还会破坏预览效应。文章指出, 预览效应是旧客体抑制机制与新客体突现捕获注意机制共同作用的结果。     

Temporal summation and reaction time to double-light pulses at suprathreshold levels

Temporal summation of the visual system was studied at suprathreshold levels by measuring reaction time (RT) to the double pulses that were equal in luminance (L) and duration. The RTs were determined as functions of L and the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the onsets of the two pulses. The relation between RT and L obtained for a given SOA was found to be a power function with the exponent 1/3. The function relating L to SOA was then derived for each of three criterion RTs. The L-SOA relationship indicated partial summation at SOAs shorter than about 20 msec. Inhibition was observed at SOAs longer than about 80 msec. These findings were consistent with the predictions from a temporal integration model.     

Prioritizing selection of new elements: On the time course of the preview effect

The preview effect demonstrates that if observers in a visual search task are allowed a preview of a subset of elements before another subset of new elements is added, the first subset of elements does no longer compete for attentional selection. The aim of the present study was to investigate how long after the presentation of the new elements the preview effect can be preserved. Observers were presented with displays containing one set of elements (old elements) followed after a certain time interval by a second set of elements (new elements). Observers searched for the presence of a target among the new elements. The target appeared through an equiluminant colour change at varying intervals after the presentation of the new elements. The results indicated that the preview effect disappears beyond 200 ms after the presentation of the new elements. The results are discussed in terms of visual marking, temporal segregation, and onset capture.     

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

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

The effect of blinks and saccadic eye movements on visual reaction times

Vision is suppressed during blinks and saccadic eye movements. We hypothesized that visual reaction times (RTs) in a vigilance test would be significantly increased when a blink or a saccade happened to coincide with the stimulus onset. Thirty healthy volunteers each performed a visual RT test for 15 min while their eye and eyelid movements were monitored by a system of infrared reflectance oculography. RTs increased significantly, many by more than 200 msec, when a blink occurred between 75 msec before and up to 150 msec after the stimulus onset. A similar result was observed with saccades that started 75 to 150 msec after the stimulus. Vision or attention was evidently inhibited before each blink and for longer than the saccades lasted. We suggest that visual suppression is involved in this process, which could explain some of the normal variability in RTs over periods of seconds that has not been adequately explained before.     

Visual marking: selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups

In visual search, when a subset of distractors is previewed 1 s before the target and the remaining distractors, search speed is independent of the number of previewed items. This is visual marking. What allows old items to be marked? Four experiments show that marking is disrupted if the onset of the new items is accompanied by synchronous changes to the old items, but it is not disrupted by changes restricted to the background or by asynchronous changes to the old items. Further, behaviorally relevant old items can be prioritized over new items. Visual marking is based on temporal asynchrony between new and old items, which allows segregation of these items into 2 temporal groups. Attention is then selectively applied to 1 group.     

Exploring the regulation of need-satisfying goals: A baseline model

Intrinsic goals fulfill fundamental psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. They tend to be self-determined, effectively pursued, and contribute to well-being. But even need-satisfying goals are pursued in the context of finite resources: How do we prioritize amongst multiple need-satisfying goals? Integrating self-determination theory with other needs theories, we proposed a baseline model whereby goals that are predominately relevant to relatedness would be prioritized over those predominately relevant to competence or autonomy. 202 participants completed a web survey about personal goals, including a goal sacrifice measure capturing within-person prioritization. Relatedness-predominant goals were prioritized over competence- and autonomy-predominant goals; this pattern was not accounted for by between-need differences in commitment and motivation regulation. People need autonomy, competence, and relatedness for optimal functioning, but in the face of limited resources they may prioritize goals that are predominately relevant to relatedness.     

Spontaneous allocation of visual attention: dominant role of uniqueness

Common sense suggests that unique or abruptly changing (transient) elements in a visual scene often draw attention involuntarily. Visual search studies paint a seemingly different picture, however: Unique items usually draw attention involuntarily only when observers seek a unique target. One type of transient— abrupt onsets—draws attention involuntarily, but only when the observer is seeking an onset (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992). One way of reconciling common-sense with these findings is to suppose that when people view a scene with no specific goal or task, they adopt adefault set, which might prioritize novelty and/or transients. In two experiments, 336 subjects saw a single display of six items for 900 msec, expecting to have to describe it (Experiment 1) or make an aesthetic judgment about it (Experiment 2). One item in the display was either uniquely flashing (surrounded by static items) or uniquely static (surrounded by flashing items). In both studies, the unique item, even if static, was more often reported than the nonunique item, with flashing items enjoying an additional advantage.     

The effect of the physical characteristics of cues and targets on facilitation and inhibition

The present experiment was conducted in order to examine the role of cue—target discriminability on early occurring attentional cuing effects and late occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The experiment used a single target stimulus in conjunction with three different cue stimuli. The cues were the same as the target, different in color, shape, and luminance to the target, or did not spatially overlap with the target. At shorter stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs; 100 and 200 msec), attentional cuing effects were only found with the nonoverlapping cues. However, at longer SOAs (400 and 800 msec), approximately equal IOR effects were found with all three types of cues. The results indicated that the physical characteristics of the cues and targets affected the pattern of reaction times at the shorter SOAs but not at the longer SOAs. The conclusion is that the biphasic pattern of early facilitation and late inhibition following a peripheral cue should not be considered the definitive signature of the peripheral cuing paradigm.