Attention and nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm

Three experiments were conducted in order to determine whether irrelevant items presented outside the focus of attention would affect the identification of a precued target. A peripheral cue indicated one of eight possible locations in a circular array, centered on fixation with a radius of 5.25°. After a variable interval (0–200 msec), eight characters were presented briefly and masked. In each experiment, there was an effect of the identity of the characters at the seven noncued locations (the nontargets) on the accuracy of identification of the target. When there were more nontargets identical to the target, accuracy was higher than when there were fewer nontargets identical to the target. Nontargets consistently affected performance despite incentives to focus only on the target.     

Nontarget detectability and interference with parafoveal target identification

A target and a flanking nontarget which shared no primary feature were exposed simultaneously in the parafoveal region of the left or right visual field. The presentation terminated with one of two metacontrast masks, one of which masked the nontarget significantly better than the other. One group of 8 subjects received nontargets which were detected better with one of the metacontrast masks, while another group of 8 subjects received nontargets which were detected better with the other mask. Target identification was significantly better when the nontarget appeared on its foveal side rather than on its peripheral side, and this superiority was independent of accuracy in detecting the nontarget. The lack of consistency of this result with models explaining the parafoveal identification asymmetry in terms of feature perturbations is emphasized. Asymmetric lateral inhibition is suggested as an explanation.     

Spatial factors in visual attention: some compensatory effects of location and time of arrival of nontargets

It is well established that the identity of nontarget events may affect reaction to a target event, but that spatial separation between the two will reduce such an influence. Two experiments are reported in which an attempt was made to distinguish between two accounts of this effect. On one, some of the information about events spatially distant from the target is shut out from analysis altogether. On the other, such events are fully analysed, but either the analysis proceeds more slowly or else it starts only after a delay. In the experiments the time of arrival of, and the distance between, the target and nontarget events were systematically varied. The conventional effects of the distance of nontargets from target were greatly reduced when the target and nontarget events were asynchronous. If the nontargets arrived first, they had an effect on reaction to the target whether they were near to or far from it. If they arrived second, their identity had no effect at either separation. These results appear to rule out any simple view of attention according to which information outside the target region is denied analysis. Rather, distant nontarget events are analysed, but produce their effects at a later time than less peripheral events.     

Direct and indirect memory tests: What they reveal about age differences in interference

The effects of interference on memory in younger and older adults were examined in a series of three experiments. In the study task, subjects were presented with a series of sentences, each having both a target, to-be-remembered ending, and a nontarget ending. Older adults showed equal priming of targets and nontargets on an indirect memory test (Experiment 1), whereas younger adults showed greater priming of the targets. In contrast, on direct memory tests (Experiments 2 and 3) both age groups were more accurate for targets than nontargets. This pattern of results is interpreted as evidence that age differences in interference involve selective attention mechanisms, but not elaborative rehearsal processes.     

Influences of target and nontarget shapes on target identification

The orientation of a nontarget in a location-cuing paradigm has been shown to affect accuracy of identification of target orientation when modified plus-signs (Ts) are the stimuli. In the current study, similar effects were found with Landolt C (C) stimuli. Both shapes of targets were identified by orientation. Moreover, targets were affected by nontargets whether both target and nontarget were the same shape or if they were different shapes. A single nontarget with an orientation that matched that of the target improved accuracy of identification of target orientation, whereas a nontarget with an orientation that did not match that of the target impaired accuracy of identification of target orientation, even though the nontargets appeared in locations that were never cued and could never contain targets. The data are consistent with either the Variable and Permeable Filters metaphor or a response competition account. Received: 1 July 1998 / Accepted: 22 October 1998     

多目标追踪任务中不同运动方式非目标的抑制机制

采用多目标追踪范式结合点探测技术的方法, 考察视觉系统对不同运动方式(静止和规则运动)非目标的抑制机制。实验一将部分非目标设置为静止, 考察静止非目标的抑制机制; 实验二将部分非目标设置为规则运动, 以提高任务难度, 考察规则运动非目标的抑制机制。结果发现: (1) 实验一中静止非目标受到抑制, 抑制量与运动非目标没有差异; (2) 实验二中规则运动非目标受到抑制, 抑制量显著小于随机运动非目标; (3)综合两实验发现, 随着任务难度的提高, 只有随机运动非目标的抑制量显著增加, 而静止非目标与规则运动非目标的抑制量差异不显著。最后, 就视觉系统对不同运动方式非目标的抑制机制进行了讨论。     

Mechanisms of the associated nontargets effect: Processes influenced by statistical learning in a simple visual environment

In three visual search experiments participants were asked to make a target response if either of two targets was present and to make a nontarget response if neither target was present. Some target-absent displays included only nontarget features that never occurred in the same displays as target features, whereas other target-absent displays included nontarget features that did sometimes occur with target features. Nontarget responses were reliably faster in the former case than in the latter. This “associated nontargets effect” appears to arise from participants' ability to learn and to use contingencies between the presence of certain nontargets and the absence of any target.     

Mechanisms of the associated nontargets effect: processes influenced by statistical learning in a simple visual environment

In three visual search experiments participants were asked to make a target response if either of two targets was present and to make a nontarget response if neither target was present. Some target-absent displays included only nontarget features that never occurred in the same displays as target features, whereas other target-absent displays included nontarget features that did sometimes occur with target features. Nontarget responses were reliably faster in the former case than in the latter. This “associated nontargets effect” appears to arise from participants' ability to learn and to use contingencies between the presence of certain nontargets and the absence of any target.     

Representation of linear orders

Two binary classification tasks were used to explore the associative structure of linear orders. In Experiment 1, college students classified English letters as targets or nontargets, the targets being consecutive letters of the alphabet. The time to reject nontargets was a decreasing function of the distance from the target set, suggesting response interference mediated by automatic associations from the target to the nontarget letters. The way in which this interference effect depended on the placement of the boundaries between the target and nontarget sets revealed the relative strengths of individual interletter associations. In Experiment 2, students were assigned novel linear orders composed of letterlike symbols and asked to classify pairs of symbols as being adjacent or nonadjacent in the assigned sequence. Reaction time was found to be a joint function of the distance between any pair of symbols and the relative positions of those symbols within the sequence. The effects of both distance and position decreased systematically over 6 days of practice with a particular order, beginning at a level typical of unfamiliar orders and converging on a level characteristic of familiar orders such as letters and digits. These results provide an empirical unification of two previously disparate sets of findings in the literature on linear orders, those concerning familiar and unfamiliar orders, and the systematic transition between the two patterns of results suggests the gradual integration of a new associative structure.     

Event-related potentials to overlapping shapes: Effects of saliency and interference

Visual perception is often challenged by various difficulties that act concomitantly and whose respective impacts may therefore be hard to distinguish. We used event-related potentials to dissociate the impact of target saliency, generated by occlusion, from that of interference produced by incongruent nontargets. In one block, the target (a square) partially occluded another square tilted by 45°. This nontarget square interfered only to a small extent with target perception. In another block, the target was the occluded stimulus, and interference from the nontarget was substantial. Blocks including two kinds of overlapping shapes (a cross and a square) were added to control for the interference effect. Block comparisons revealed that occlusion modulated an occipital N250 and reaction times. In contrast, interference modulated a parietal N380 but not reaction times.     

Depth of nontarget processing in an attention task

Two studies examined the effect of the sensory discriminability of targets from nontargets on depth of nontarget processing. Subjects shadowed target words that were binaurally presented with coincident nontarget words. Targets and nontargets were spoken in the same male voice under low sensory discriminability and in male and female voices, respectively under high sensory discriminability. Across the two studies, depth of nontarget processing was assessed in three ways: extent to which shadowing accuracy was disrupted by a semantic overlap between targets and nontargets, expenditure of capacity (reaction time to subsidiary light signals), and nontarget recall. All three possible measures of depth of nontarget processing decreased as sensory discriminability increased. The data support the assumption of multiple-loci theories of attention that nontargets can be perceptually inhibited; they contraindicate the assumption of late-selection theories that perceptual processing is automatic and irrepressible.     

The associated nontargets effect: Evidence of nontarget processing at and beyond the level of letter recognition

In four visual search tasks participants were asked to make a target response if either of two targets was present and to make a nontarget response if neither target was present. Some target-absent displays included only nontarget stimuli or features that never occurred in the same displays as targets, whereas other target-absent displays included nontarget stimuli or features that did sometimes occur with targets. Nontarget responses were reliably faster in the former case than in the latter. This “associated nontargets effect” indicates that nontargets are not simply classified as nontargets but in addition are discriminated from one another. Current visual search models may underestimate the degree to which nontargets are processed during search.     

Vibrotactile masking: The role of response competition

When two tactile patterns, a target and a nontarget pattern, are presented in close temporal proximity to the same location, the nontarget pattern may interfere with the identification of the target. A series of experiments examined the extent to which the interference in target identification results from masking (interference in the representation of the target at an early stage of processing) or from response competition. A response competition view of pattern perception holds that both the target and nontarget are fully processed to the level of evoking responses. Interference is produced when subjects select the nontarget rather than the target. This view was tested with a paradigm developed in studies of selective attention. Pairs of tactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left index fingerpads. The amount of interference produced by a nontarget that is physically different from a target depends on whether the nontarget is associated with the same response as the target or a different response. The amount of masking also depends on the set of target and nontarget patterns that are used. The results support the conclusion that subjects have available a representation of both the target and the nontarget and that a substantial portion of the interference previously attributed to masking may be due to response competition.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets.

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers4on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Categorization and identification of simultaneous targets.

Early and late selection theories of visual attention disagree about whether identification occurs before or after selection. Studies showing the category effect, i.e., the time to detect a letter is hardly affected by the number of digits present in the display, are taken as evidence for late selection theories since these studies suggest parallel identification of all items in the display. As an extension of previous studies, in the present study two categorically different targets were presented simultaneously among a variable number of nontargets. Subjects were shown brief displays of two target letters among either 2, 4 or 6 nontarget digits. Subjects responded 'same' when the two letters were identical and 'different' otherwise. Since the 'same-different' response reflects the combined outcome of the simultaneous targets, late-selection theory predicts that the time to match the target letters is independent of the number of nontarget digits. Alternatively, early-selection theory predicts a linear increase of reaction time with display size since the presence of more than one target disrupts parallel preattentive processing, leading to a serial search through all items in the display. The results provide evidence for the early-selection view since reaction time increased linearly with the number of categorically different nontargets. A control experiment revealed that none of the alternative explanations could account for the display size effect.     

Target localization after saccades and at fixation: Nontargets both facilitate and bias responses

ABSTRACT

The image on our retina changes every time we make an eye movement. To maintain visual stability after saccades, specifically to locate visual targets, we may use nontarget objects as “landmarks”. In the current study, we compared how the presence of nontargets affects target localization after saccades and during sustained fixation. Participants fixated a target object, which either maintained its location on the screen (sustained-fixation trials), or displaced to trigger a saccade (saccade trials). After the target disappeared, participants reported the most recent target location with a mouse click. We found that the presence of nontargets decreased response error magnitude and variability. However, this nontarget facilitation effect was not larger for saccade trials than sustained-fixation trials, indicating that nontarget facilitation might be a general effect for target localization, rather than of particular importance to post-saccadic stability. Additionally, participants’ responses were biased towards the nontarget locations, particularly when the nontarget-target relationships were preserved in relative coordinates across the saccade. This nontarget bias interacted with biases from other spatial references, e.g., eye movement paths, possibly in a way that emphasized non-redundant information. In summary, the presence of nontargets is one of several sources of reference that combine to influence (both facilitate and bias) target localization.     

Perceptual processing of nontargets in an attention task

The capability of nontargets to qualitatively influence the semantic processing of coincident targets was investigated in three experiments. Subjects were aurally presented a series of word pairs and attempted to detect homonymic instances of a predesignated category (e.g., animals). The nontarget with which a target (e.g., ANT) was paired was appropriate (e.g., CRAWLING), inappropriate (e.g., UNCLE), or neutral (e.g., STRAW). Experiments 1 and 2 established that detection of targets can be facilitated by appropriate nontargets and inhibited by inappropriate ones. Thus, nontargets can influence the way in which targets are semantically represented. Experiment 3 showed that this effect is eliminated when subjects are precued as to the ear of entry of targets. Thus, precuing appears to curtail the perceptual processing of nontargets. The data run counter to theories that claim that focused attention does not entail the perceptual suppression of nontargets.     

The costs of target prioritization and the external requirements for using a recall-to-reject strategy in memory exclusion tasks: a meta-analysis

In event-related potential (ERP) studies, the left-parietal old/new effect is commonly considered as a neural correlate of recollection. In memory exclusion tasks, the effect is usually observed when the targeted information is identified, but it is not necessarily present when studied items are rejected as nontargets. Interestingly, both the presence and the absence of such old/new effects to nontargets have been regarded as indicator for strategic retrieval. We reviewed previous ERP studies using memory exclusion tasks to analyze the reaction time (RT) pattern in such studies, as well as the influence of task difficulty on the occurrence of nontarget retrieval. We identified 44 test conditions, reported in 24 studies, and subjected the behavioral data to a meta-analysis. The RTs to correctly rejected new items were shorter than the RTs to hits, in particular in studies that required differentiating conceptual or perceptual information at test. When the retrieval of target information was prioritized, RTs to nontargets were delayed relative to targets. Without such prioritization, no such RT differences were observed. For test conditions with nontarget retrieval, the retrieval accuracy was poorer compared with test conditions without such retrieval. The findings support previous studies that claimed that nontarget retrieval becomes more likely when target retrieval is difficult, but the strong overlap in task difficulty between conditions with and without nontarget retrieval indicates that other, partly yet to-be-identified factors contribute to the occurrence of nontarget retrieval as well.     

Age and the selectivity of visual information processing

Two experiments were conducted to assess age differences in the selectivity of visual information processing. Selectivity was measured by the amount of interference caused by nontarget letters when subjects detected a target letter in a visual display. In both experiments, young and elderly groups participated in search and nonsearch conditions; in the search condition targets appeared anywhere in the display, whereas in the nonsearch condition targets were confined to the center position of the display. In the first experiment, subjects were assigned to either condition for two sessions of testing, and in the second experiment each subject participated in both conditions. In both experiments nontargets produced larger interference effects for old compared to young adults in the search condition but not in the nonsearch condition. The obtained pattern of age effects could not be explained by age-related reductions in parafoveal acuity. The findings indicate that the magnitude of divided-attention deficit increases with age, whereas focused-attention deficits are unaffected by aging.