Allocation of visual attention depends on type of precue

To distinguish between theoretical concepts of how attention is allocated, participants were presented with different types of precues in 6 experiments. In 1 condition with 100% valid precues (Experiments 1 and 2), the time course of attention effects revealed that (a) higher accuracy was obtained with dynamic multiple-element precues (MEPs in which the unique element was defined by apparent motion) than with static MEPs, in which the elements did not move once they were presented (Cheal & Chastain, 1998); (b) a longer precue-target interval (stimulus-onset asynchrony; SOA) was needed to reach asymptote accuracy with dynamic MEPs than with dynamic single-element precues (SEPs); and (c) all dynamic precues (both MEPs and SEPs) resulted in a decline in accuracy at long SOAs. These results suggest that static and dynamic MEPs result in delayed engagement of attention relative to SEPs. Further, a decline in accuracy at long intervals is associated with static and dynamic SEPs and dynamic MEPs, but not with static MEPs. With irrelevant precues (Experiments 3 to 5), there was capture by precues in which the unique element moved briskly, smoothly, or abruptly, or simply flashed on and off, although there were differences in the amount of capture. The strongest capture occurred with smooth movement in static background elements and the weakest with smooth movement in abruptly moving background elements. It was shown in Experiment 6 that a static MEP will not capture attention if one element changes to a unique brightness near the time of precue onset, but if the element changes after 1,000 ms, it will capture attention. The authors suggest that different types of precues result in unequal influence of endogenous and exogenous components of attention, even when the same targets are used. In addition, they show that neither singleton detection mode nor contingent involuntary orienting is necessary for the capture of attention.     

Time course of attention effects with abrupt-onset and offset single- and multiple-element precues

Large differences between the time course of attentional responsiveness to onset single-element precues (onset singles) and to onset multiple-element precues (onset multiples) have suggested differences in the way attention is controlled. In five experiments here, singles presented as offsets produced rapid attention buildup, attentional decay across longer precue-to-target delays, and attentional capture, as do onset singles, suggesting exogenous attentional control; both offset and onset multiples produced gradual onset of attentional effects without subsequent attentional decay, suggesting endogenous attentional control; and onset and offset singles produced higher accuracy than onset and offset multiples. Thus, the dynamic quality of a sudden onset is not sufficient explanation for the exogenous attentional control produced by a single-element peripheral precue.     

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     

Timing of facilitatory and inhibitory effects of visual attention

Three experiments were conducted to investigate influences on the precue-to-target delay at which response facilitation is first replaced by inhibition of return (IOR). In Experiment 1, different ranges of delays were used; the interpolated delay at which faster RTs for matching precue and target locations changed to slower RTs was inversely related to the length of the range of precue-to-target delays within a block of trials. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2, which additionally showed that task difficulty provided an insufficient explanation for the delay in the changeover time. These data allowed the conclusion that a shorter range of precue-to-target delays results in later onset of IOR than does a longer range of delays. The data from Experiment 3 suggested that a single character on the target screen confounds the interpretation of possible facilitation and/or inhibition due to the allocation of attention. These results were related to other reported findings and to theories of attention allocation.     

A framework for understanding the allocation of attention in location-precued discrimination

The effects of attention on visual perception are assessed in the location-precuing paradigm. First, we present a review of some current metaphors for attention and relevant data. Then, a framework is suggested that provides an interpretation of the temporal sequence of external and assumed internal processes within a location-cuing trial. Cases when a precue correctly indicates the target location (valid trials) are compared to cases when the precue directs attention to the wrong location (invalid trials) with the cue location either at fixation or peripheral to the target location. Several specific hypotheses are suggested; these concern decrements in performance on invalid trials and effects of the location of a precue. For the most part, these hypotheses are supported by data in the literature and in some new studies. A gradient-filter metaphor for attention, which includes a synthesis of ideas from the gradient model and the attention gate model, is more consistent with the data than is a spotlight metaphor.     

Efficiency of visual selective attention is related to the type of target

Lavie and Cox (1997, Psychological Science, 8, 395) suggested that stimuli outside the focus of attention can have more distracting effects when the task requires less attention than when it requires more. This idea provides an explanation for the proposed dissociation found between two forms of attentional control (Folk & Remington, 1998, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 847). This proposal was based on a red (green) distractor that captured attention when a red (green) target was used, but not when a green (red) target was used, and the further result that, if there were no distractor, reaction times were faster than with either type of distractor. We tested whether a target that requires serial search would eliminate the dissociation. With the same targets used by Folk and Remington (ones that can be found with parallel search), we also obtained a dissociation. However, with the serial-search targets, dissociation was not found. Our interpretation is that the dissociation represents two forms of the same attentional process.     

Allocation of attention in texture segregation, visual search, and location-precuing paradigms

Is there a common mechanism (or set of mechanisms) that controls the allocation of spatial attention in texture segregation, visual search, and location-precuing tasks? This question was addressed by comparing data from our previous research on location-cuing and search tasks with data from a new set of experiments on texture segregation, in which a common set of stimuli was used across the three paradigms. However, when we ranked the scores for the targets on texture segregation speed, search rate, and improvement due to precuing effects, agreement between these measures was less than perfect. Further analyses of these results led to the following conclusions: (a) speed of texture segregation is affected by perceptual aspects of the display other than the attentional salience of a particular target; (b) visual search rate and the size of precuing effects are strongly related over most of the set of targets we used; and (c) some cases in which search rate was not consistent with size of precue effects may be related to the presence of nearby distractors in the search task.