Attention in visual search: multiple search classes.

Data from visual-search tasks are typically interpreted to mean that searching for targets defined by feature differences does not require attention and thus can be performed in parallel, whereas searching for other targets requires serial allocation of attention. The question addressed here was whether a parallel-serial dichotomy would be obtained if data were collected using a variety of targets representing each of several kinds of defining features. Data analyses included several computations in addition to search rate: (1) target-absent to target-present slope ratios; (2) two separate data transformations to control for errors; (3) minimum reaction time; and (4) slopes of standard deviation as a function of set size. Some targets showed strongly parallel or strongly serial search, but there was evidence for several intermediate search classes. Sometimes, for a given target-distractor pair, the results depended strongly on which character was the target and which was the distractor. Implications from theories of visual search are discussed.     

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.     

Benefits from attention depend on the target type in location-precued discrimination.

In previous research, we found that precuing of attention to a target location greatly improved discrimination of targets that differed in line arrangement, but had little effect on discrimination of targets that differed in line orientation. In the present research, a number of other targets that represent various feature differences were used. The new data are consistent with and extend our earlier findings by showing that (1) there is some effect of precuing with all targets tested, and (2) the size of precuing effects varies in a complex way with the nature of the target. Moreover, the difficulty of the discrimination cannot explain the size of the precuing effects. A framework for understanding the events occurring during trials in the location-cuing paradigm is presented and applied to these results.     

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.     

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.     

Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination

There are suggestions in the literature that spatial precuing of attention with peripheral and central cues may be mediated by different mechanisms. To investigate this issue, data from two previous papers were reanalysed to investigate the complete time course of precuing target location with either: (1) a peripheral cue that may draw attention reflexively, or (2) a central, symbolic cue that may require attention to be directed voluntarily. This analysis led to predictions that were tested in another experiment. The main result of this experiment was that a peripheral cue produced its largest effects on discrimination performance within 100 msec, whereas a central cue required approximately 300 msec to achieve maximum effects. In conjunction with previous findings, the present evidence for time differences between the two cuing conditions suggests that more than one process is involved in the spatial precuing of attention.     

Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities

Considerable disagreement exists in the visual attention literature about how attention is allocated over the visual field. One frequently expressed metaphor is that attention moves like a spotlight, and in some variants it is assumed that attention takes longer to shift to targets further from fixation. In order to test this metaphor, five experiments were conducted in which target location was precued and form discrimination accuracy was assessed. By varying the interval between the precue and the target (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA), a time course of attention effects was obtained for targets at 2°, 6°, and 10° eccentricity. In the first three experiments, precueing effects were found, but there were no differences in performance as a function of eccentricity for very short SOAs, with either a peripheral cue or a foveal arrow cue. For long SOAs, however, performance was better for targets that were closer to fixation. In Experiments 4 (peripheral cue) and 5 (foveal cue), the targets were scaled to make them equally discriminable at all eccentricities. Again precueing effects were found, but there were no differences in accuracy as a function of eccentricity for most SOAs. These results suggest that attention shifting is not analogous to a constant-velocity moving spotlight.     

Does attention have different effects on line orientation and line arrangement discrimination?

Visual search and texture segregation studies have led to the inference that stimuli differing in the orientation of their component line segments can be distinguished without focal attention, whereas stimuli that differ only in the arrangement of line segments cannot. In most of this research, the locus of attention has not been explicitly manipulated. In the first experiment presented here, attention was directed to a relevant peripheral target by a cue presented near the target location or at the fovea. Effects of attention on orientation discrimination were assessed in a two-alternative forced-choice task with targets that were either: (1) lines that slanted obliquely to the right or left, or were horizontal or vertical, or (2) Y-like targets that had a short arm leading obliquely right or left of a vertical line. In some groups, a four-alternative forced-choice test with lines at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° orientations was used. Discrimination of these targets (i.e. targets that differ in the orientation of component line segments) was only minimally facilitated as the time between the onset of the valid cue and the onset of the target (cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) was increased from 0 or 17 msec to 267 msec. In contrast, discrimination of targets that did not differ in the orientation of component line segments but differed in line arrangement (T-like characters), was greatly facilitated by longer cue-target SOAs. In Experiment 2, a cue misdirected attention on 20% of the trials. A decrement occurred on incorrectly cued trials in comparison to correctly cued trials for both types of stimuli used (lines and Ts). The results from these experiments suggest that discrimination of line orientation benefits less from focal attention than does discrimination of line arrangement, but that both discriminations suffer when attention must be disengaged from an irrelevant spatial location.