Attentional capture by motion onsets is modulated by perceptual load

The onset of motion captures attention during visual search even if the motion is not task relevant, which suggests that motion onsets capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner. However, we have recently shown that stimulus-driven attentional capture by abruptly appearing objects is attenuated under conditions of high perceptual load. In the present study, we examined the influence of perceptual load on attentional capture by another type of dynamic stimulus: the onset of motion. Participants searched for a target letter through briefly presented low- and high-load displays. On each trial, two irrelevant flankers also appeared, one with a motion onset and one that was static. Flankers defined by a motion onset captured attention in the low-load but not in the high-load displays. This modulation of capture in high-load displays was not the result of overall lengthening of reaction times (RTs) in this condition, since search for a single low-contrast target lengthened RTs but did not influence capture. These results, together with those of previous studies, suggest that perceptual load can modulate attentional capture by dynamic stimuli.     

Motion onset really does capture attention

Several properties of visual stimuli have been shown to capture attention, one of which is the onset of motion. However, whether motion onset truly captures attention has been debated. It has been argued that motion onset only captured attention in previous studies because properties of the animated motion used in those experiments caused it to be “jerky” (i.e., there were gaps between successive images during animated motion). The present study sought to determine whether natural motion onset captures attention. Additionally, the present study further examined the circumstances under which animated motion onset, the only type of motion onset that can be produced on a computer display, does and does not capture attention. In Experiment 1, participants identified target letters in search arrays containing distinct animated motion types, either accompanied or unaccompanied by a new object. Animated motion onset captured attention, but not when the motion onset was accompanied by a new object, indicating that prior failures to replicate capture by animated motion onset were limited because a new object had always been included in the display. Experiment 2 employed natural motion rather than animated motion and found that participants were fastest at identifying motion-onset targets compared to other target types. These results provide further support for the claim that motion onset captures attention.     

Perceptual load modulates attentional capture by abrupt onsets

The abrupt appearance of a new object captures attention, even when the object is task irrelevant. These findings suggest that abrupt onsets capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner and are not susceptible to top-down influences on attentional control. However, previous studies examining the ability of abrupt onsets to capture attention have used search displays that lacked significant complexity. Because attention is a limited capacity mechanism, it is possible that increasing the complexity, or perceptual load, of the search arrays may modulate capture by abrupt onsets. We used a flanker task to examine the effect of perceptual load on attentional capture by abruptly appearing objects. Subjects searched for a target letter through low-load (set size=1) and high-load (set size=6) displays. On each trial, irrelevant flankers also appeared, one as an onset and the other as an offset. Onset flankers affected search in low-load but not high-load displays. This modulation of attentional capture was not caused by generalized slowing when subjects searched through high-load displays; search for a single perceptually degraded target slowed response times but did not affect attentional capture. These findings demonstrate that attentional capture by an abrupt onset is attenuated when people search through high-load scenes.     

Motion onset does not capture attention when subsequent motion is “smooth”

Previous research on the attentional effects of moving objects has shown that motion per se does not capture attention. However, in later studies it was argued that the onset of motion does capture attention. Here, we show that this motion-onset effect critically depends on motion jerkiness—that is, the rate at which the moving stimulus is refreshed. Experiment 1 used search displays with a static, a motion-onset, and an abrupt-onset stimulus, while systematically varying the refresh rate of the moving stimulus. The results showed that motion onset only captures attention when subsequent motion is jerky (8 and 17 Hz), not when it is smooth (33 and 100 Hz). Experiment 2 replaced motion onset with continuous motion, showing that motion jerkiness does not affect how continuous motion is processed. These findings do not support accounts that assume a special role for motion onset, but they are in line with the more general unique-event account.     

Novelty and saliency in attentional capture by unannounced motion singletons

The present study examined attentional capture by an unannounced motion singleton in a visual search task. The results showed that a motion singleton only captured attention on its first unannounced occurrence when the observers had not encountered moving items before in the experiment, whereas it failed to capture when observers were familiar with moving items. This indicates that motion can capture attention independently of top-down attentional control settings, but only when motion as a feature is unexpected and new. An additional experiment tested whether salient items can capture attention when all stimuli possess new and unexpected features, and novelty information cannot guide attention. The results showed that attention was shifted to the location of the salient item when all items were new and unexpected, reinforcing the view that salient items receive attentional priority. The implications of these results for current theories of attention are discussed.     

Attentional capture by globally defined objects.

The abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object in the visual field typically captures visual attention. However, if attention is focused in advance on a different location, onsets can fail to capture attention (Yantis & Jonides, 1990). In the present experiments, we investigated the extent to which the deployment of attention to the local level of a hierarchical scene may be affected by the abrupt appearance of a new object at the global level. Participants searched for a semi-disk target in an array of randomly oriented segmented disks ("pacmen"). On half the trials, a subset of the segmented disks induced a subjective square. On these critical trials, participants were significantly slower to respond to the presence of a local target even though the local features of the display were qualitatively identical across all conditions. This slowing was absent when outline pacmen were used (which do not induce subjective figures) and when the subjective square was perceptually old. When the participants' task was defined at the global level of the display, a new local element failed to capture attention, suggesting an asymmetry in the ability of objects at different levels of a hierarchical scene to capture attention. In a control experiment, a new local element captured attention, however, when the participants' task was defined at the local level, indicating that the local item was in principle capable of capturing attention. It is argued that global objects capture attention because they convey important information about the environment that is not available at the local level.     

Attentional capture by globally defined objects

The abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object in the visual field typically captures visual attention. However, if attention is focused in advance on a different location, onsets can fail to capture attention (Yantis & Jonides, 1990). In the present experiments, we investigated the extent to which the deployment of attention to the local level of a hierarchical scene may be affected by the abrupt appearance of a new object at the global level. Participants searched for a semi-disk target in an array of randomly oriented segmented disks (“pacmen”). On half the trials, a subset of the segmented disks induced a subjective square. On these critical trials, participants were significantly slower to respond to the presence of a local target even though the local features of the display were qualitatively identical across all conditions. This slowing was absent when outline pacmen were used (which do not induce subjective figures) and when the subjective square was perceptually old. When the participants’ task was defined at the global level of the display, a new local element failed to capture attention, suggesting an asymmetry in the ability of objects at different levels of a hierarchical scene to capture attention. In a control experiment, a new local element captured attention, however, when the participants’ task was defined at the local level, indicating that the local item was in principle capable of capturing attention. It is argued that global objects capture attention because they convey important information about the environment that is not available at the local level.     

Do new objects capture attention?

The visual system relies on several heuristics to direct attention to important locations and objects. One of these mechanisms directs attention to sudden changes in the environment. Although a substantial body of research suggests that this capture of attention occurs only for the abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object, more recent evidence shows that some luminance-based transients (e.g., motion and looming) and some types of brightness change also capture attention. These findings show that new objects are not necessary for attention capture. The present study tested whether they are even sufficient. That is, does a new object attract attention because the visual system is sensitive to new objects or because it is sensitive to the transients that new objects create? In two experiments using a visual search task, new objects did not capture attention unless they created a strong local luminance transient.     

Coordination of voluntary and stimulus-driven attentional control in human cortex

Visual attention may be voluntarily directed to particular locations or features (voluntary control), or it may be captured by salient stimuli, such as the abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object (stimulus-driven control). Most often, however, the deployment of attention is the result of a dynamic interplay between voluntary attentional control settings (e.g., based on prior knowledge about a target's location or color) and the degree to which stimuli in the visual scene match these voluntary control settings. Consequently, nontarget items in the scene that share a defining feature with the target of visual search can capture attention, a phenomenon termed contingent attentional capture. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to show that attentional capture by target-colored distractors is accompanied by increased cortical activity in corresponding regions of retinotopically organized visual cortex. Concurrent activation in the temporoparietal junction and ventral frontal cortex suggests that these regions coordinate voluntary and stimulus-driven attentional control settings to determine which stimuli effectively compete for attention.     

You can't stop new motion: Attentional capture despite a control set for colour

When a stationary object begins to move, visual spatial attention is reflexively deployed to the location of that object. We tested whether this capture of attention by new motion is entirely stimulus driven, or whether it is contingent on an observer's goals. Participants monitored a visual display for a colour change, inducing an attentional control set (ACS) for colour. Across the three performed experiments, irrelevant new-motion cues always captured visual spatial attention, despite the ACS for colour. This persistence of the attentional cueing effect demonstrates that ACSs, in particular an ACS for colour, cannot prevent new motion from capturing attention. Unlike other stimulus types, such as luminance changes, colour singletons, and new objects, new motion may always capture attention regardless of an observer's goals. This conclusion entails that new motion is an important determinant of when, and to where, visual spatial attention is deployed.     

Moving and looming stimuli capture attention

Attention capture is often operationally defined as speeded search performance when an otherwise nonpredictive stimulus happens to be the target of a visual search. That is, if a stimulus captures attention, it should be searched with priority even when it is irrelevant to the task. Given this definition, only the abrupt appearance of a new object (see, e.g., Jonides & Yantis, 1988) and one type of luminance contrast change (Enns, Austen, Di Lollo, Rauschenberger, & Yantis, 2001) have been shown to strongly capture attention. We show that translating and looming stimuli also capture attention. This phenomenon does not occur for all dynamic events: We also show that receding stimuli do not attract attention. Although the sorts of dynamic events that capture attention do not fit neatly into a single category, we speculate that stimuli that signal potentially behaviorally urgent events are more likely to receive attentional priority.     

When something old becomes something new: spatiotemporal object continuity and attentional capture

This article examines the possibility that the visal system treats dynamic cues a instances of new perceptual objects undersome circumstances. Using the contingent capture paradigm (C. L. Folk, R. W. Remington, & J. C. Johnston, 1992), the author compared luminance change cues of different magnitude for their ability to capture attention when participants were set for new objects. Wheras small luminance changes failed to produce attentional capture, large luminance changs indeed captured attention, suggesting that they were treated as compatible with the participants' attentional set for new objects. It is argued that sufficiently large luminance transients led to a disurption of spatiotemporal object continuity and precipitated the emergence of a new perceptual object.     

Does imminent threat capture and hold attention?

According to models of attention and emotion, threat captures and holds attention. In behavioral tasks, robust evidence has been found for attentional holding but not for attentional capture by threat. An important explanation for the absence of attentional capture effects is that the visual stimuli used posed no genuine threat. The present study investigated whether visual cues that signal an aversive white noise can elicit attentional capture and holding effects. Cues presented in an attentional task were simultaneously provided with a threat value through an aversive conditioning procedure. Response latencies showed that threatening cues captured and held attention. These results support recent views on attention to threat, proposing that imminent threat captures attention in everyone.     

Entirely irrelevant distractors can capture and captivate attention

The question of whether a stimulus onset may capture attention when it is entirely irrelevant to the task and even in the absence of any attentional settings for abrupt onset or any dynamic changes has been highly controversial. In the present study, we designed a novel irrelevant capture task to address this question. Participants engaged in a continuous task making sequential forced choice (letter or digit) responses to each item in an alphanumeric matrix that remained on screen throughout many responses. This task therefore involved no attentional settings for onset or indeed any dynamic changes, yet the brief onset of an entirely irrelevant distractor (a cartoon picture) resulted in significant slowing of the two (Experiment 1) or three (Experiment 2) responses immediately following distractor appearance These findings provide a clear demonstration of attention being captured and captivated by a distractor that is entirely irrelevant to any attentional settings of the task.     

Does feature similarity facilitate attentional selection?

Object-based attention enables us to simultaneously select and report two features from the same visual object. Does feature-based attention contribute similarly to visual selection? In the present study, we investigated the concurrent discrimination of two motion fields with a divided attention paradigm. We found that dual-task performance improved when the two fields conformed to a continuous optic flow, consistent with “object-based” selection. However, we found no such improvement when the two motion fields were merely similar, as would have been expected from “feature-based” selection. Therefore, feature similarity does not facilitate attentional selection in the same way as belonging to the same object does.     

Attentional capture with various distractor and target types

Effects of nonpredictive distractors that involved changes in luminance, size, or shape were examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, with two types of distractors (onsets and offsets), accuracy was better on trials when the distractor was near the location of either an offset or an onset target than on trials when the distractor was in a different location from that of the target, demonstrating attentional capture. Capture occurred both when the type of target (onset or offset) was blocked and therefore predictable and also when the type of target was mixed within blocks and therefore not predictable. Further experiments indicated that distractors captured attention even when the change to distractor did not create a new perceptual object. Neither a singleton-detection mode, nor a contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, nor creation of a new object seems to explain all of these data adequately. Rather, capture may depend on a number of factors in the task.     

Attentional capture with various distractor and target types

Effects of nonpredictive distractors that involved changes in luminance, size, or shape were examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, with two types of distractors (onsets and offsets), accuracy was better on trials when the distractor was near the location of either an offset or an onset target than on trials when the distractor was in a different location from that of the target, demonstrating attentional capture. Capture occurred both when the type of target (onset or offset) was blocked and therefore predictable and also when the type of target was mixed within blocks and therefore not predictable. Further experiments indicated that distractors captured attention even when the change to distractor did not create a new perceptual object. Neither a singleton-detection mode, nor a contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, nor creation of a new object seems to explain all of these data adequately. Rather, capture may depend on a number of factors in the task.     

Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds

Two experiments found that form discriminations to a target item were inhibited when the target appeared adjacent to an attentionally salient item. Experiment 1 manipulated the attentional salience of an irrelevant color singleton through the attentional set adopted by the subjects. Color singletons captured attention when the target was itself a feature singleton, but not when the target was defined as a conjunction of features. Attentional capture was accompanied by an inhibitory region (i.e., slowed target reaction times), which dissipated with distance from the color singleton. In Experiment 2, the attentional salience of abrupt onsets and color singletons was compared. Irrelevant abrupt onsets captured attention, whereas irrelevant color singletons failed to capture attention. Again, an inhibitory region surrounded the attentionally salient abrupt onsets, but not the color singletons. The results are discussed in the context of current models of visual spatial attention and suggest a distinction between attentional preparation and attentional selection.     

Can new objects override attentional control settings?

Previous research suggests that attentional capture by abrupt onsets is contingent on top-down attentional control settings. Four experiments addressed whether similar contingencies hold for capture elicited by the appearance of new perceptual objects. In a modified spatial cuing task, targets defined by abrupt onset or color were paired with distractors consisting of an abrupt brightening of an existing object or the abrupt appearance of a new object. In Experiments 1 and 2, when subjects searched for an onset target, both distractor types produced evidence of capture. When subjects searched for a color target, however, distractors produced no evidence of attentional capture, regardless of whether they consisted of a new perceptual object or not. Experiments 3-5 showed that the lack of distractor effects in the color-target condition cannot be accounted for by rapid recovery from capture. It was concluded that attentional capture by new objects is subject to top-down modulation by attentional control settings.