Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing.

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

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes.     

动态情景中颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中的作用

在动态的“线索-靶子”范式中引入隧道刺激, 以靶子与线索的非空间特征相同时的反应延迟测量返回抑制效应。实验1利用单向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的作用。实验2利用双向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息不明确的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的独立作用。实验3、4分别采用与实验1、2类似的方法, 在动态任务情景中考察客体的身份特征在返回抑制中的作用。结果显示, 线索呈现与靶子呈现的时间间隔较长时, 4个实验中均存在显著的返回抑制效应。这表明, 动态情景中, 客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中都发挥着重要作用; 客体的空间位置信息不明确时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中也都具有相对独立的作用。     

On the uniqueness of attentional capture by uninformative gaze cues: facilitation interacts with the Simon effect and is rarely followed by IOR.

Orienting to an uninformative peripheral cue is characterized by a brief facilitation followed by a long-lasting inhibition once attention is removed from the cued location. Although central gaze cues cause reflexive orienting, the inhibitory effect that is relatively ubiquitous following exogenous orienting to uninformative peripheral cues has been relatively rare. We hypothesized that IOR might be seen following gaze-induced orienting if attention were effectively returned to centre by a return gaze or return flash. The timecourse of gaze-directed orienting was measured by varying the interval between the gaze cue and a peripheral target requiring an orientation discrimination (permitting measurement of the Simon effect). Significant facilitation was observed at all but the longest SOA tested, 2,880 ms, by which time the facilitation had disappeared with no evidence of IOR. Gaze-induced cuing (which was unaffected by return cue condition) interacted with the Simon effect, decreasing it at the gazed-at location, a pattern that is not seen with more typical endogenous and exogenous cuing.     

The manifestation of attentional capture: facilitation or IOR depending on task demands

Orienting attention exogenously to a location can have two different consequences on processing subsequent stimuli appearing at that location: positive (facilitation) at short intervals and negative (inhibition of return) at long ones. In the present experiments, we manipulated the frequency of targets and responses associated with them. Results showed that, even at long SOAs, where IOR is usually observed, facilitation was observed for infrequent targets at the same time that IOR was measured for frequent targets. These results are difficult to explain on the basis of either task set modulation of attentional capture or task set modulation of subsequent orienting processes. In contrast, we offer an explanation by which the different cuing effects can be considered as different manifestations of attentional capture on target processing, depending on the task set.     

Configural and contextual prioritization in object-based attention

When attention is directed to a location within an object, other locations within that object also enjoy an attentional advantage. Recently we demonstrated that this object-based advantage is mediated by increased attentional priority assigned to locations within an already attended object and not to early sensory enhancement due to the "spread" of attention within the attended object (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002). At least two factors might contribute to the assignment of attentional priority, one related to the configuration of objects in a scene and the other related to the probability of target appearance in each location imposed by task contingencies. We investigated the relative contribution of these factors by cuing one end of one of a pair of rectangles; a subsequent target appeared most often in the cued location. We manipulated attentional priority setting by varying (1) the probability that a target would appear in each of two uncued locations and (2) the cue to target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). On invalidly cued trials, the target appeared in the high-probability location (defined by an absolute spatial location, e.g., upper right) 83% of the time and in the low-probability location (e.g., lower left) 17% of the time. In both conditions, uncued targets appeared in the cued object half the time and in the uncued object half the time. At short SOAs, the same-object and probability effects were approximately additive. However, at longer SOAs, the same-object effects disappeared, and reaction times depended exclusively on location probability. These results suggest that observers adopt an implicit configural scanning strategy (in which unattended locations within an attended object have high priority) or an implicit contextual scanning strategy (in which objectively high-probability locations have high priority) depending on task contingencies and the amount of time that is available to deploy attention.     

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

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

Object-based visual attention with endogenous orienting

In a series of experiments, we examined covert orienting using endogenous cuing, in which attention is voluntarily directed toward a peripheral location. In one experiment, subjects were cued to attend to one end of an oblong object. They then detected targets on the cued object or elsewhere. In another experiment, subjects provided judgments of the relative temporal order of two flashes after their attention had moved endogenously. In a third experiment, subjects were directed to attend to an empty spatial location and subsequently discriminated features of objects that appeared at or near the locus of attention. In each of these situations, attentional orienting was object based, in the sense that nonattended locations that were on the cued object had an advantage over nonattended locations that were not on the object. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for object-based representations and the differences between exogenous and endogenous orienting of attention.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus “masking” IOR.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus "masking" IOR.     

Oculomotor inhibition of return: Evidence against object-centered representation

ABSTRACT

Intermixing central, directional arrow targets with the peripheral targets typically used in the Posnerian spatial cueing paradigm offers a useful diagnostic for ascertaining the relative contributions of output and input processes to oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR). Here, we use this diagnostic to determine whether object-based oculomotor IOR comprises output and/or input processes. One of two placeholder objects in peripheral vision was cued, then both objects rotated smoothly either 90 or 180 degrees around the circumference of an imaginary circle. After this movement, a saccade was made to the location marked by a peripheral onset target or indicated by the central arrow. In our first three experiments, whereas there was evidence for IOR when measured by central arrow or peripheral onset targets at cued locations, there was little trace of IOR at the cued object. We thereafter precisely replicated the seminal experiment for object-based oculomotor IOR (Abrams, R. A., & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(3), 467–477; Experiment 4) but again found little evidence of an object-based IOR effect. Finally, we ran a paradigm with only peripheral targets and with motion and stationary trials randomly intermixed. Here we again showed IOR at the cued location but not at the cued object. Together, the findings suggest that object-based representation of oculomotor IOR is much more tenuous than implied by the literature.     

Inhibition of return for objects and locations in static displays

When orienting attention, inhibition mechanisms prevent the return of attention to previously examined stimuli. This inhibition of the return of attention (IOR) has been shown to be associated additively with location- and object-based representations. That is, when static objects are attended, IOR is associated with both the object and the location cued, and hence IOR is larger than when only spatial location is attended. Recently McAuliffe, Pratt, and O'Donnell (2001) failed to observe such additive effects except under a narrow set of conditions (at short cue-target intervals and using mixed blocks in which object- and pure location-based effects were probed in the same display). The present study shows that additive IOR effects are observed under conditions that violate all of these boundary conditions. The results also show that IOR is modulated by internal structural properties of objects. These findings are cosistent with the hypothesis that IOR operates over functionally independent object- and location-based frames of reference.     

Examining the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return.

To clarify the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return (IOR), the present study compared four conditions: fixation cue immediately after the peripheral cue, in the middle of the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA), immediately before the onset of the target, or no fixation cue. With a 200-ms SOA, less IOR was found when the fixation cue was either absent or occurred immediately after the peripheral cue. No differences between the four conditions were found with 400-ms and 800-ms SOAs. These findings suggest that there is a brief period of time in which attention cannot be withdrawn from the peripherally cued location. Once attention has been withdrawn from the peripherally cued location, IOR can be found at short SOAs.     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

The role of attention in the facilitation effect and another "inhibition of return"

The present study investigated how anticipation of a target's appearance affects human attention to gaze cues provided by a schematic face. Subjects in a 'catch' group received a high number of 'catch' trials, in which no target stimulus appeared. Subjects in the control group did not receive any catch trials. As in previous studies, both groups showed a facilitation effect to the cued location during shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In both groups, an analysis of eye movements confirmed that subjects' eyes remained on the fixation point, ruling out the possibility that the facilitation effect was due to shifting eye movements (saccades) as opposed to a shift in covert attention. But while the control group's response time (RT) decreased as SOA increased, the catch group's RT had a U-shaped pattern and the facilitation effect to the cued location was reversed at the longest SOA (1005 ms). These results suggest that subjects in the catch group disengaged their attention during long SOAs because they expected the trial to be a catch trial. This disengagement of attention during long SOAs results in a delay before attention could be re-focused to the previous location regardless of the cue validity ["IOR (inhibition of return)"-like-phenomenon]. Unlike the conventional IOR, we suggest that this "IOR"-like phenomenon caused by an unpredictive central gaze cue is likely to be mediated by an endogenous mechanism.     

中央线索化对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响

采用3×2×3的混合实验设计,考察了三种线索-靶子呈现时间间隔条件下,中央线索化对动态范式中“基于客体的返回抑制”的影响。结果表明,在外周方框旋转同时或旋转停止后中央线索化时,出现了“基于客体的返回抑制”效应,但在外周方框旋转之前中央线索化时,“基于客体的返回抑制”效应却消失了。这说明中央线索化对动态范式中的“基于客体的返回抑制”有着重要的影响,也为动态范式中“基于客体的返回抑制”的空间位置抑制动态更新说提供了新的证据。     

Capturing attention is not that simple: Different mechanisms for stimulus-driven and contingent capture

Attentional orienting can be involuntarily directed to task-irrelevant stimuli, but it remains unsolved whether such attentional capture is contingent on top-down settings or could be purely stimulus-driven. We propose that attentional capture depends on the stimulus property because transient and static features are processed differently; thus, they might be modulated differently by top-down controls. To test this hybrid account, we adopted a spatial cuing paradigm in which a noninformative onset or color cue preceded an onset or color target with various stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Results showed that the onset cue captured attention regardless of target type at short—but not long—SOAs. In contrast, the color cue captured attention at short and long SOAs, but only with a color target. The overall pattern of results corroborates our hypothesis, suggesting that different mechanisms are at work for stimulus-driven capture (by onset) and contingent capture (by color). Stimulus-driven capture elicits reflexive involuntary orienting, and contingent capture elicits voluntary feature-based enhancement.     

Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: evidence for dual orienting mechanisms

We investigated whether inhibition of return (IOR) could be observed in location-based, scene-based, and object-centered frames of reference. IOR was found to move both with a separate cued object (scene-based) and with a location within a single rotating object (object-centered). Importantly, however, IOR was also associated with the environmental location cued when cuing was of a separate object (scene-based), whereas facilitation of the cued location was found when cuing was of a component within an object. These results suggest that location is of central importance to scene-based representations of separate objects, which appear to be encoded in viewer-centered coordinates, whereas environmental locus is of little relevance when attention orients within a single object. The results also provide further evidence for the coexistence of both excitation and inhibition associated with uninformative exogenous cues.     

Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues

The experiment conducted examined the effect of simultaneously presented onset and offset cues on the orienting of attention in the visual field. Subjects were presented with a display that consisted of four placeholder boxes around a central fixation point. An onset and an offset cue appeared simultaneously in two of the locations, and the other two locations provided a neutral baseline condition. Reaction times were measured in a simple target detection task with stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) that ranged from 100 ms to 1,000 ms. As expected, the onset cue produced early facilitation and later occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The offset cue produced significant inhibition at all but the earliest SOA. These results suggest that simultaneously presented onset and offset cues both capture attention, but that attention is rapidly disengaged from the location of the offset cue, resulting in earlier occurring IOR. For the onset cues, attention is allocated for a longer period of time, producing the typical pattern of early facilitation and later occurring IOR. The differing time course of attention at each location may reflect separate facilitatory and inhibitory processes, and the priority given to the onset of a stimulus by the attentional system.     

Objects do not aid inhibition of return in crossing the vertical meridian

Location-based cuing experiments have shown that inhibition of return (IOR) spreads beyond a cued location but appears to be confined to the cued hemifield by the vertical meridian. Previous studies have also shown that IOR can spread across objects and here we investigate whether an object can be used to mediate the spreading of IOR into the opposite hemifield. Two experiments used a rectangular object that surrounded four target locations, two to the left and right of a central fixation point. The spreading of IOR in the presence of the object was determined and compared with a condition where the object-frame was absent. Object-present and object-absent trials were either mixed within a block (Experiment 1) or divided into separate blocks (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed robust inhibition in the cued but not the uncued hemifield, further demonstrating the hemifield-based spreading of IOR.