Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking

Attentional demands of multiple-object tracking were demonstrated using a dual-task paradigm. Participants were asked to make speeded responses based on the pitch of a tone, while at the same time tracking four of eight identical dots. Tracking difficulty was manipulated either concurrent with or after the tone task. If increasing tracking difficulty increases attentional demands, its effect should be larger when it occurs concurrent with the tone. In Experiment 1, tracking difficulty was manipulated by having all dots briefly attract one another on some trials, causing a transient increase in dot proximity and speed. Results showed that increasing proximity and speed had a significantly larger effect when it occurred at the same time as the tone task. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that manipulating either proximity or speed independently was sufficient to produce this pattern of results. Experiment 4 manipulated object contrast, which affected tracking performance equally whether it occurred concurrent with or after the tone task. Overall, results support the view that the moment-to-moment tracking of multiple objects demands attention. Understanding what factors increase the attentional demands of tracking may help to explain why tracking is sometimes successful and at other times fails.     

Self-motion impairs multiple-object tracking

Investigations of multiple-object tracking aim to further our understanding of how people perform common activities such as driving in traffic. However, tracking tasks in the laboratory have overlooked a crucial component of much real-world object tracking: self-motion. We investigated the hypothesis that keeping track of one’s own movement impairs the ability to keep track of other moving objects. Participants attempted to track multiple targets while either moving around the tracking area or remaining in a fixed location. Participants’ tracking performance was impaired when they moved to a new location during tracking, even when they were passively moved and when they did not see a shift in viewpoint. Self-motion impaired multiple-object tracking in both an immersive virtual environment and a real-world analog, but did not interfere with a difficult non-spatial tracking task. These results suggest that people use a common mechanism to track changes both to the location of moving objects around them and to keep track of their own location.     

Evidence against a speed limit in multiple-object tracking

Everyday tasks often require us to keep track of multiple objects in dynamic scenes. Past studies show that tracking becomes more difficult as objects move faster. In the present study, we show that this trade-off may not be due to increased speed itself but may, instead, be due to the increased crowding that usually accompanies increases in speed. Here, we isolate changes in speed from variations in crowding, by projecting a tracking display either onto a small area at the center of a hemispheric projection dome or onto the entire dome. Use of the larger display increased retinal image size and object speed by a factor of 4 but did not increase interobject crowding. Results showed that tracking accuracy was equally good in the large-display condition, even when the objects traveled far into the visual periphery. Accuracy was also not reduced when we tested object speeds that limited performance in the small-display condition. These results, along with a reinterpretation of past studies, suggest that we might be able to track multiple moving objects as fast as we can a single moving object, once the effect of object crowding is eliminated.     

Evidence for a shared mechanism used in multiple-object tracking and subitizing

It has been proposed that the mechanism that supports the ability to keep track of multiple moving objects also supports subitizing--the ability to quickly and accurately enumerate a small set of objects. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the effects on subitizing when human observers were required to perform a multiple object tracking task and an enumeration task simultaneously. In three experiments, participants (Exp. 1, N = 24; Exp. 2, N = 11; Exp. 3, N = 37) enumerated sets of zero to nine squares that were flashed while they tracked zero, two, or four moving discs. The results indicated that the number of items participants could subitize decreased by one for each item they tracked. No such pattern was seen when the enumeration task was paired with an equally difficult, but nonvisual, working memory task. These results suggest that a shared visual mechanism supports multiple object tracking and subitizing.     

Processing of extrafoveal objects during multiple-object naming

In 3 experiments, the authors investigated the extent to which objects that are about to be named are processed prior to fixation. Participants named pairs or triplets of objects. One of the objects, initially seen extrafoveally (the interloper), was replaced by a different object (the target) during the saccade toward it. The interloper-target pairs were identical or unrelated objects or visually and conceptually unrelated objects with homophonous names (e.g., animal- baseball bat). The mean latencies and gaze durations for the targets were shorter in the identity and homophone conditions than in the unrelated condition. This was true when participants viewed a fixation mark until the interloper appeared and when they fixated on another object and prepared to name it while viewing the interloper. These results imply that objects that are about to be named may undergo far-reaching processing, including access to their names, prior to fixation.     

Speech planning during multiple-object naming: effects of ageing

Two experiments were conducted with younger and older speakers. In Experiment 1, participants named single objects that were intact or visually degraded, while hearing distractor words that were phonologically related or unrelated to the object name. In both younger and older participants naming latencies were shorter for intact than for degraded objects and shorter when related than when unrelated distractors were presented. In Experiment 2, the single objects were replaced by object triplets, with the distractors being phonologically related to the first object's name. Naming latencies and gaze durations for the first object showed degradation and relatedness effects that were similar to those in single-object naming. Older participants were slower than younger participants when naming single objects and slower and less fluent on the second but not the first object when naming object triplets. The results of these experiments indicate that both younger and older speakers plan object names sequentially, but that older speakers use this planning strategy less efficiently.     

Speech planning during multiple-object naming: Effects of ageing

Two experiments were conducted with younger and older speakers. In Experiment 1, participants named single objects that were intact or visually degraded, while hearing distractor words that were phonologically related or unrelated to the object name. In both younger and older participants naming latencies were shorter for intact than for degraded objects and shorter when related than when unrelated distractors were presented. In Experiment 2, the single objects were replaced by object triplets, with the distractors being phonologically related to the first object's name. Naming latencies and gaze durations for the first object showed degradation and relatedness effects that were similar to those in single-object naming. Older participants were slower than younger participants when naming single objects and slower and less fluent on the second but not the first object when naming object triplets. The results of these experiments indicate that both younger and older speakers plan object names sequentially, but that older speakers use this planning strategy less efficiently.     

Age differences in enumerating things that move: Implications for the development of multiple-object tracking

The attentional theory of spatial enumeration (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1994) predicts that subitizing, the rapid process (40-120 msec/item) used to enumerate 1-4 items, employs the same mechanism that permits individuals to track 4-5 moving items simultaneously, whereas enumerating more items requires moving attentional focus from area to area in the display. To test this theory, enumeration of static and moving items was investigated in 8-, 10-, 12-, and 20-year-old participants using a number discrimination task. As was predicted, random independent item motion did not substantially impede enumeration of 1-4 items regardless of age. However, even movement within a 1.14 degree square area slowed enumeration of 6-9 items, although on average the interference decreased with age from 788 msec for the 8-year-olds to 136 msec for the 20-year-olds. The relevance of this finding for theories of enumeration, multiple-object tracking, visual working memory, and object-based attention is discussed.     

Attentional tracking and inhibition of return in dynamic displays

Seven experiments were conducted to replicate, and extend, a finding by Tipper, Driver, and Weaver (1991). They reported evidence for dynamic, object-centered inhibition of return (IOR)—that is, coding of inhibition following a peripheral cue in coordinates that move with the previously cued object, providing a dynamic bias against reattending to that object. The present experiments used a variation of Posner and Cohen’s (1984) spatial cuing paradigm. Subjects responded manually (simple reaction time) to a luminance increment in one of two peripheral boxes, one of which had previously been cued (brightened). Experiments 1, 2, and 5 replicated the standard (environmental) IOR effect when the display was stationary. IOR was more marked for right-side targets than for left-side targets and tended to be affected by the compatibility between response hand and (cued) target position. However, when the boxes moved around the display center (Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), contrary to Tipper et al., there was no evidence of dynamic, object-centered IOR. Rather, there was strong evidence of attentive tracking of whatever box happened to move from left to right, irrespective of the direction of its motion (clockwise or counterclockwise) and whether it was more likely to contain the target than the other (right-to-left moving) box. There was a tendency for left-to-right tracking to be more marked with right-hand responses, pointing to the existence of a dynamic stimulus-response compatibility effect. The implications of the present findings for the role of attentive tracking and IOR in dynamic scenes are discussed.     

Attentional enhancement opposite a peripheral flash revealed using change blindness

We describe a new method for mapping spatial attentionthat reveals a pooling of attention in the hemifield opposite a peripheralflash. Our method exploits the fact that a brief full-field blank caninterfere with the detection of changes in a scene that occur during theblank. Attending to the location of a change, however, can overcome thischange blindness, so that changes are detected. The likelihood of detecting anew element in a scene therefore provides a measure of the occurrence ofattention at that element's location. Using this measure, we mappedhow attention changes in response to a task-irrelevant peripheral cue. Underconditions of visual fixation, change detection was above chance across theentire visual area tested. In addition, a "hot spot" ofattention (corresponding to near-perfect change detection) elongated alongthe cue-fixation axis, such that performance improved not only at the cuedlocation but also in the opposite hemifield.     

Attentional resources in visual tracking through occlusion: the high-beams effect

A considerable amount of research has uncovered heuristics that the visual system employs to keep track of objects through periods of occlusion. Relatively little work, by comparison, has investigated the online resources that support this processing. We explored how attention is distributed when featurally identical objects become occluded during multiple object tracking. During tracking, observers had to detect small probes that appeared sporadically on targets, distracters, occluders, or empty space. Probe detection rates for these categories were taken as indexes of the distribution of attention throughout the display and revealed two novel effects. First, probe detection on an occluder’s surface was better when either a target or distractor was currently occluded in that location, compared to when no object was behind that occluder. Thus even occluded (and therefore invisible) objects recruit object-based attention. Second, and more surprising, probe detection for both targets and distractors was always better when they were occluded, compared to when they were visible. This new attentional high-beams effect indicates that the ability to track through occlusion, though seemingly effortless, in fact requires the active allocation of special attentional resources.     

Attentional asymmetries during concurrent bimanual performance

An asymmetry of attention was observed when subjects attempted to perform concurrent, relatively independent tasks with the two hands: right-handed subjects performed very much better on a dual task which required them to follow the beat of a metronome with the left while tapping as quickly as they could with the right than with the converse arrangement. It is suggested that attentional strategies which have evolved to allow guidance of interdependent skilled bimanual activities are also used when subjects attempt to perform relatively independent concurrent bimanual movements, which are not observed in the naturally occurring motor repertoire. Thus, interactions between hand, hand preference and nature of task are an important factor in dual task performance.     

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.     

Attentional allocation during the perception of scenes

Semantic influences on attention during the 1st fixation on a scene were explored in 3 experiments. Subjects viewed briefly presented scenes; following scene presentation, a spatial probe was presented at the location of an object whose identity was consistent or inconsistent with the scene category. Responses to the probe served as an index of attention. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that within approximately 150 ms of scene onset, subjects attend preferentially to inconsistent objects. The results of Experiment 2, in which additional scene durations were used, confirm the presence of an inconsistent-object advantage that emerges within approximately 150 ms. Finally, the results of Experiment 3 demonstrate that the inconsistent-object advantage does not reflect strategic allocation of attention to likely probe locations. Implications of the results for scene perception and exploration are discussed.     

Attentional selection during preparation of eye movements

Two experiments were conducted to examine the relationship between visual attention and saccade programming. Participants had to saccade to a letter string and detect a letter change presented briefly before the saccade onset. Hit probability (i.e., correct detection of a letter change in different positions) was taken as a measure of visual attention focus. The first experiment shows that hit probability depends on the actual landing position. These findings argue for a spatial coupling between saccade programming and the orienting of attention. Also, an unfamiliar letter cluster at the beginning captures attention and prevails over the influence of the saccade in preparation. Experiment 2, in which the letter change occurred at different times during the saccade latency, shows that attention shifts and focuses on the saccade target at the expense of the other parts of the stimulus when the motor program is ready to be executed. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

Attentional selection during preparation of prehension movements

In two experiments coupling between dorsal attentional selection for action and ventral attentional selection for perception during preparation of prehension movements was examined. In a dual-task paradigm subjects had to grasp an X-shaped object with either the left or the right hand's thumb and index finger. Simultaneously a discrimination task was used to measure visual attention prior to the execution of the prehension movements: Mask items transiently changed into distractors or discrimination targets. There was exactly one discrimination target per trial, which appeared at one of the four branch ends of the object. In Experiment 1 target position varied randomly while in Experiment 2 it was constant and known to subjects in each block of trials. In both experiments discrimination performance was significantly better for discrimination target positions at to-be-grasped branch ends than for not-to-be-grasped branch ends. We conclude that during preparation of prehension movements visual attention is largely confined to those parts of an object that will be grasped.     

Selective spatial enhancement: Attentional spotlight size impacts spatial but not temporal perception

An important but often neglected aspect of attention is how changes in the attentional spotlight size impact perception. The zoom-lens model predicts that a small (“focal”) attentional spotlight enhances all aspects of perception relative to a larger (“diffuse” spotlight). However, based on the physiological properties of the two major classes of visual cells (magnocellular and parvocellular neurons) we predicted trade-offs in spatial and temporal acuity as a function of spotlight size. Contrary to both of these accounts, however, across two experiments we found that attentional spotlight size affected spatial acuity, such that spatial acuity was enhanced for a focal relative to a diffuse spotlight, whereas the same modulations in spotlight size had no impact on temporal acuity. This likely reflects the function of attention: to induce the high spatial resolution of the fovea in periphery, where spatial resolution is poor but temporal resolution is good. It is adaptive, therefore, for the attentional spotlight to enhance spatial acuity, whereas enhancing temporal acuity does not confer the same benefit.     

Attentional signatures of perception: multiple object tracking reveals the automaticity of contour interpolation

Multiple object tracking (MOT) is an attentional task wherein observers attempt to track multiple targets among moving distractors. Contour interpolation is a perceptual process that fills-in nonvisible edges on the basis of how surrounding edges (inducers) are spatiotemporally related. In five experiments, we explored the automaticity of interpolation through its influences on tracking. We found that (1) when the edges of targets and distractors jointly formed dynamic illusory or occluded contours, tracking accuracy worsened; (2) when interpolation bound all four targets together, performance improved; (3) when interpolation strength was weakened (by altering the size or relative orientation of inducing edges), tracking effects disappeared; and (4) real and interpolated contours influenced tracking comparably, except that real contours could more effectively shift attention toward distractors. These results suggest that interpolation's characteristics-and, in particular, its automaticity-can be revealed through its attentional influences or "signatures" within tracking. Our results also imply that relatively detailed object representations are formed in parallel, and that such representations can affect tracking when they become relevant to scene segmentation.