Resource demands of object tracking and differential allocation of the resource

The attentional processes for tracking moving objects may be largely hemisphere-specific. Indeed, in our first two experiments the maximum object speed (speed limit) for tracking targets in one visual hemifield (left or right) was not significantly affected by a requirement to track additional targets in the other hemifield. When the additional targets instead occupied the same hemifield as the original targets, the speed limit was reduced. At slow target speeds, however, adding a second target to the same hemifield had little effect. At high target speeds, the cost of adding a same-hemifield second target was approximately as large as would occur if observers could only track one of the targets. This shows that performance with a fast-moving target is very sensitive to the amount of resource allocated. In a third experiment, we investigated whether the resources for tracking can be distributed unequally between two targets. The speed limit for a given target was higher if the second target was slow rather than fast, suggesting that more resource was allocated to the faster of the two targets. This finding was statistically significant only for targets presented in the same hemifield, consistent with the theory of independent resources in the two hemifields. Some limited evidence was also found for resource sharing across hemifields, suggesting that attentional tracking resources may not be entirely hemifield-specific. Together, these experiments indicate that the largely hemisphere-specific tracking resource can be differentially allocated to faster targets.     

Independent resources for attentional tracking in the left and right visual hemifields

The ability to divide attention enables people to keep track of up to four independently moving objects. We now show that this tracking capacity is independently constrained in the left and right visual fields as if separate tracking systems were engaged, one in each field. Specifically, twice as many targets can be successfully tracked when they are divided between the left and right hemifields as when they are all presented within the same hemifield. This finding places broad constraints on the anatomy and mechanisms of attentive tracking, ruling out a single attentional focus, even one that moves quickly from target to target.     

Spatial separation between targets constrains maintenance of attention on multiple objects

Humans are limited in their ability to maintain multiple attentional foci. In attentive tracking of moving objects, performance declines as the number of tracked targets increases. Previous studies have interpreted such reduction in terms of a limit in the number of attentional foci. However, increasing the number of targets usually reduces spatial separation among different targets. In this study, we examine the role of target spatial separation in maintaining multiple attentional foci. Results from a multiple-object tracking task show that tracking accuracy deteriorates as the spatial separation between targets decreases. We propose that local interaction between nearby attentional foci modulates the resolution of attention, and that capacity limitation from attentive tracking originates in part from limitations in maintaining critical spacing among multiple attentional foci. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that tracking performance is limited not primarily by a number of locations, but by factors such as the spacing and speed of the targets and distractors.     

Speed has an effect on multiple-object tracking independently of the number of close encounters between targets and distractors

Multiple-object tracking (MOT) studies have shown that tracking ability declines as object speed increases. However, this might be attributed solely to the increased number of times that target and distractor objects usually pass close to each other (“close encounters”) when speed is increased, resulting in more target–distractor confusions. The present study investigates whether speed itself affects MOT ability by using displays in which the number of close encounters is held constant across speeds. Observers viewed several pairs of disks, and each pair rotated about the pair’s midpoint and, also, about the center of the display at varying speeds. Results showed that even with the number of close encounters held constant across speeds, increased speed impairs tracking performance, and the effect of speed is greater when the number of targets to be tracked is large. Moreover, neither the effect of number of distractors nor the effect of target–distractor distance was dependent on speed, when speed was isolated from the typical concomitant increase in close encounters. These results imply that increased speed does not impair tracking solely by increasing close encounters. Rather, they support the view that speed affects MOT capacity by requiring more attentional resources to track at higher speeds.     

Close coupling between eye movements and serial attentional refreshing during multiple-identity tracking

Multiple-identity tracking (MIT) is a dynamic task in which observers track multiple moving objects of distinct identities and then report the location of each target object. The present study examined participant’ eye movements during MIT in order to investigate the relationship between eye movements and attentional performance during the task. The results showed that fixations were predominately directed to individual targets during tracking. When successfully landed on targets, the fixations dwelled for longer duration; otherwise, they were terminated quickly. As the attentional demands for processing the targets increased, fixations landed on the targets more frequently while fixations outside targets decreased both in number and duration. The attentionally more demanding targets were fixated more frequently than the attentionally less demanding ones. The most recently fixated target was tracked with higher performance, while the tracking accuracy for the more previously fixated targets gradually decreased. Taken together, the results indicate that fixations are tightly coupled with attention during MIT, switching serially from target to target for refreshing each object representation to facilitate the tracking of identities and locations of multiple targets.     

Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention

Attention allows us to monitor objects or regions of visual space and select information from them for report or storage. Classical theories of attention assumed a single focus of selection but many everyday activities, such as video games, navigating busy intersections, or watching over children at a swimming pool, require attention to multiple regions of interest. Laboratory tracking tasks have indeed demonstrated the ability to track four or more targets simultaneously. Although the mechanisms by which attention maintains contact with several targets are not yet established, recent studies have identified several characteristics of the tracking process, including properties defining a 'trackable' target, the maximum number of targets that can be tracked, and the hemifield independence of the tracking process. This research also has implications for computer vision, where there is a growing demand for multiple-object tracking.     

Processing overlap-dependent distractor dilution rather than perceptual target load determines attentional selectivity

The perceptual load theory of attentional selection argues that the degree to which distractors interfere with target processing is determined by the “perceptual load” (or discrimination difficulty) of target processing: when perceptual load is low, distractors interfere to a greater extent than when it is high. A well-known exception is load-independent interference effects from face distractors during processing of name targets. This finding was reconciled with load theory by proposing distinct processing resources for faces versus names. In the present study, we revisit this effect to test (a) whether increasing the processing overlap (perceptual, lexical, conceptual) between potential targets and distractors would reinstate the classic load effect, and (b) whether this data pattern could be better explained by load theory or by a rival account that argues that distractor dilution rather than target load determines the degree of distractor interference. Over four experiments, we first replicate the original finding and then show that load effects grow with increasing processing overlap between potential targets and distractors. However, by adding dilution conditions, we also show that these processing overlap dependent modulations of distractor interference can be explained by the distractor dilution perspective but not by perceptual load theory. Thus, our findings support a processing overlap dilution account of attentional selection.     

Spatial reference in multiple object tracking

Spatial reference in multiple object tracking is available from configurations of dynamic objects and static reference objects. In three experiments, we studied the use of spatial reference in tracking and in relocating targets after abrupt scene rotations. Observers tracked 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 targets in 3D scenes, in which white balls moved on a square floor plane. The floor plane was either visible thus providing static spatial reference or it was invisible. Without scene rotations, the configuration of dynamic objects provided sufficient spatial reference and static spatial reference was not advantageous. In contrast, with abrupt scene rotations of 20°, static spatial reference supported in relocating targets. A wireframe floor plane lacking local visual detail was as effective as a checkerboard. Individually colored geometric forms as static reference objects provided no additional benefit either, even if targets were centered on these forms at the abrupt scene rotation. Individualizing the dynamic objects themselves by color for a brief interval around the abrupt scene rotation, however, did improve performance. We conclude that attentional tracking of moving targets proceeds within dynamic configurations but detached from static local background.     

Both exogenous and endogenous target salience manipulations support resource depletion accounts of the attentional blink: A reply to Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009)

Input control theories of the attentional blink (AB) suggest that this deficit results from impaired attentional selection caused by the post-Target 1 (T1) distractor (Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007). Accordingly, these theories predict that there should be no AB when no distractors intervene between the targets. Contrary to these hypotheses, Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) observed an AB (T3 deficit) when three targets, from the same attentional set, were presented successively in a rapid stream of distractors, if subjects increased the resources they devoted to T1 processing. This result is consistent with resource depletion accounts of the AB. However, Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009) argue that Dux et al.’s results can be better explained by the relationship between T1 and T2, and by target discriminability effects, rather than by the relationship between T1 and T3. Here, we find that manipulating the resources subjects devote to T1, either exogenously (target perceptual salience) or endogenously (target task relevance), affects T3 performance, even when T2 and target discriminability differences are controlled for. These results support Dux et al.’s conclusion that T1 resource depletion underlies the AB.     

Localized attentional interference affects object individuation, not feature detection

Modern theorists conceptualize visual selective attention as a competition between object representations for the control of extrastriate receptive fields, an account supported by the finding that attentional selection of one stimulus can degrade processing of nearby stimuli. In the present study the conditions that produce reciprocal interference between attended stimuli are examined. Each display contained either no, one, or two feature-defined target items among an array of homogeneous distractors. Observers performed two tasks, feature detection and object individuation. The feature-detection task required observers to determine if any targets were present within the display. The object-individuation task required observers to determine if the number of targets was exactly two. Spatially mediated interference between target pairs occurred in the object-individuation task, but had no effect on feature detection. Results suggest that localized interference between attended stimuli occurs only when observers are required to resolve the features of individual objects, consistent with the competitive interaction models of attention.     

Testing the embodied account of object naming: A concurrent motor task affects naming artifacts and animals

Embodied theories of object representation propose that the same neural networks are involved in encoding and retrieving object knowledge. In the present study, we investigated whether motor programs play a causal role in the retrieval of object names. Participants performed an object-naming task while squeezing a sponge with either their right or left hand. The objects were artifacts (e.g. hammer) or animals (e.g. giraffe) and were presented in an orientation that favored a grasp or not. We hypothesized that, if activation of motor programs is necessary to retrieve object knowledge, then concurrent motor activity would interfere with naming manipulable artifacts but not non-manipulable animals. In Experiment 1, we observed naming interference for all objects oriented towards the occupied hand. In Experiment 2, we presented the objects in more ‘canonical orientations’. Participants named all objects more quickly when they were oriented towards the occupied hand. Together, these interference/facilitation effects suggest that concurrent motor activity affects naming for both categories. These results also suggest that picture-plane orientation interacts with an attentional bias that is elicited by the objects and their relationship to the occupied hand. These results may be more parsimoniously accounted for by a domain-general attentional effect, constraining the embodied theory of object representations. We suggest that researchers should scrutinize attentional accounts of other embodied cognitive effects.     

Spatial attention is necessary for object-based attention: Evidence from temporal-order judgments

Attentional selection is a dynamic process that relies on multiple types of representations. That object representations contribute to attentional selection has been known for decades; however, most evidence for this contribution has been gleaned from studies that have relied on various forms of spatial cueing (some endogenous and some exogenous). It has thus remained unclear whether object-based attentional selection is a direct result of spatial cuing, or whether it still emerges without any spatial marker. Here we used a novel method—the temporal-order judgment (TOJ)—to examine whether object-based guidance emerges in the absence of spatial cuing. Participants were presented with two rectangles oriented either horizontally or vertically. Following a 150-ms preview time, two target stimuli were presented on the same or on different objects, and participants were asked to report which of the two stimuli had appeared first. The targets consisted of stimuli that formed a percept of a “hole” or a “hill.” First, we demonstrated that the “hill” target was indeed processed faster, as evidenced by a positive perceived simultaneity (PSS) measure. We then demonstrated that if two targets appeared with equal probabilities on the same and on different objects, the PSS values, although positive, were not modulated by the objects. In a subsequent set of experiments, we showed that objects can modulate attentional allocation—however, only when they are biased by a spatial (endogenous) cue. In other words, in the absence of a spatial cue or bias, object representations do not guide attentional selection. In addition to providing new constraints for theories of object-based attentional guidance, these experiments introduce a novel paradigm for measuring object-based attentional effects.     

Effects of similarity, difficulty, and nontarget presentation on the time course of visual attention

Long-lasting interference from an initial visual target on a subsequent one has been measured in two paradigms: rapid serial presentation of targets and nontargets at a single location, and simple presentation of two spatially separated targets. We note that comparisons between these paradigms might be invalid, since interference in each paradigm can be attributed to a different source: demands on selective attention, or demands to switch locations. We use a novel target presentation that both minimizes selection demands and eliminates location switching, yet we still find long-lasting interference. We suggest that all three paradigms discussed tap a common attentional limit. We also examine effects of similarity between targets, and effects of discrimination difficulty on the initial target. We find that similarity effects are more pronounced when nontargets are present, and we find no effect of discrimination difficulty on subsequent interference.     

Attention blinks for selection, not perception or memory: reading sentences and reporting targets

In whole report, a sentence presented sequentially at the rate of about 10 words/s can be recalled accurately, whereas if the task is to report only two target words (e.g., red words), the second target suffers an attentional blink if it appears shortly after the first target. If these two tasks are carried out simultaneously, is there an attentional blink, and does it affect both tasks? Here, sentence report was combined with report of two target words (Experiments 1 and 2) or two inserted target digits, Arabic numerals or word digits (Experiments 3 and 4). When participants reported only the targets an attentional blink was always observed. When they reported both the sentence and targets, sentence report was quite accurate but there was an attentional blink in picking out the targets when they were part of the sentence. When targets were extra digits inserted in the sentence there was no blink when viewers also reported the sentence. These results challenge some theories of the attentional blink: Blinks result from online selection, not perception or memory.     

Age-related changes in attentional tracking of multiple moving objects

In a multiple-object tracking (MOT) task, young and older adults attentively tracked a subset of 10 identical, randomly moving disks for several seconds, and then tried to identify those disks that had comprised the subset. Young adults who habitually played video games performed significantly better than those who did not. Compared to young subjects (mean age = 20.6 years) with whom they were matched for video game experience, older subjects (mean age = 75.3 years) showed much reduced ability to track multiple moving objects, particularly with faster movement or longer tracking times. Control measurements with stationary disks show that the age-related decline in MOT was not caused by a general change in memory per se. To generate an item-wise performance measure, we examined older subjects' proportion correct according to the serial order in which individual disks were identified. Correct identification of target disks declined with the order in which targets were reported, suggesting that attentional tracking produced graded, rather than all-or-none, outcomes.     

Target—distractor interference in the attentional blink implicates the locus coeruleus—norepinephrine system

We provide evidence that the locus coeruleus—norephinephrine (LC-NE) system is the neurophysiological basis of the attentional blink. The attentional blink refers to decreased accuracy for reporting the second of two targets in a rapid serial visual presentation of distractors. The LC-NE account of the attentional blink posits that targets elicit a facilitative LC-NE system response that is available for the first target but subsequently unavailable to the second, due to the autoinhibitory nature of the LC-NE system. We propose a modification of the LC-NE account, suggesting that the LC-NE system response is elicited by interference between mutually exclusive responses demanded by temporally proximal targets and distractors. We increased the interference between the first target and the following distractor by reducing the time between them. For identifying the second target this high-interference condition yielded a benefit up to 200 msec after onset of the first, followed by a decrease in accuracy. Consistent with our modification of the LC-NE account, this result suggests a temporarily enhanced LC-NE system response to increased target—distractor interference.     

Dividing attention between two different categories and locations in rapid serial visual presentations

When two targets are embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors, perception of the second target is impaired if the intertarget lag is relatively short (less than 500 msec). This phenomenon, called attentional blink, has been attributed to a temporal inability of attentional resources. Nevertheless, a recent study found that observers could monitor two RSVP streams concurrently for up to four items presented in close succession, suggesting a much larger visual capacity limit. However, such high-capacity performance could be obtained by a rapid shift of attention, rather than concurrent monitoring of multiple locations. Therefore, the present study examined these alternatives. Results from six experiments indicate that observers can concurrently monitor two noncontiguous locations, even when targets and distractors are from different categories, such as digits, English alphabet letters, Japanese characters, and pseudocharacters. These results can be explained in terms of a modified input-filtering model in which a multidimensional attentional set can be flexibly configured at different spatial locations.     

一种混合型前瞻记忆的加工机制

通过两个实验, 对以往研究忽略的一种基于事件进行反应、且具有时间线索的混合型前瞻记忆的加工过程进行考察。结果表明, 这种混合型的前瞻记忆可以通过控制加工或自动加工提取, 还可能两种加工交替存在, 被试在执行过程中, 根据时间信息, 有选择地、动态地将注意资源投入于不同时间段, 现有理论不能解释这种现象。对多重加工理论进行补充, 使之能够解释这种混合型前瞻记忆的加工机制。     

The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired if it is presented less than about 500 ms after the first. Theoretical accounts of this second-target deficit, known as attentional blink (AB), have relied on some form of limited attentional resource that is allocated to the leading target at the expense of the trailing target. Three experiments in the present study reveal a failure of resource-limitation accounts to explain why the AB is absent when the targets consist of a stream of three items belonging to the same category (e.g., letters or digits). The AB is reinstated, however, if an item from a different category is inserted in the target string. This result, and all major results in the AB literature, is explained by the hypothesis that the AB arises from a temporary loss of control over the prevailing attentional set. This lapse in control renders the observer vulnerable to an exogenously-triggered switch in attentional set.     

Competition for representation is mediated by relative attentional salience

The biased competition model of attentional selection proposes that objects compete with one another for neural representation, with the competition rooted in stimulus and attentionally-based salience. Two experiments explore how the salience of a target item relative to flanking items impacts the speed of target identification. The results of two experiments suggest that spatially proximal items compete for shared, spatially dependent processing resources. In both experiments, subjects identified target elements embedded in multi-element displays. In Experiment 1, attentional salience was manipulated by using abrupt onsets (high-salience) and non-onsets (low-salience). Target identifications were slowest when the target was flanked by two high-salience stimuli (abrupt onsets) and fastest when the target was flanked by two low-salience items, (non-onsets). In Experiment 2, the attentional salience of display items was set through a probability manipulation involving the color of the target. The results mirrored those of Experiment 1, consistent with predictions of the biased competition model.