Distribution of visual attention over space.

Subjects viewed 3 X 3 grids in which different subsets of the nine squares were designated as "figure," either by physical shading of those squares or by a verbal instruction to imagine those squares as shaded. The time taken by participants to respond "on" or "off" the figure was measured for single or multiple probe dots, which all appeared on or off the figural subset together, and which had already been shown to be equally detectable against shaded or unshaded squares and in all nine locations within the grid. In contrast to the set-size effect generally found in experiments on memory scanning, reaction time did not necessarily increase with the number of squares in the figural subset. Instead, the critical variable, which in previous research may often have adventitiously covaried with set size, was the spatial compactness of the subsets (as indexed by square-root-area over perimeter): Probes of less compact figures required more time to classify correctly. Subjects were evidently more successful in confining their attention to sets of mutually proximal items. Reasons are given for believing that this principle may also apply in the more abstract representational or semantic spaces that determine reaction times and errors in various other cognitive tasks.

[1]  F ATTNEAVE,et al.  The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. , 1956, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  R. Shepard Stimulus and response generalization: tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  N. Sutherland,et al.  Theories of Shape Discrimination in Octopus , 1960, Nature.

[4]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Goodness of pattern and pattern uncertainty. , 1963 .

[5]  R. Shepard,et al.  Stimulus generalization in the learning of classifications. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  S. Sternberg High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory , 1966, Science.

[7]  H. Stenson The physical factor structure of random forms and their judged complexity1 , 1966 .

[8]  R E Morin,et al.  Recognition memory and reaction time. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[9]  ROBERT S. MOYER,et al.  Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality , 1967, Nature.

[10]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display , 1969 .

[11]  S. Sternberg Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. , 1969, American scientist.

[12]  R. E. Morin,et al.  Recognition reaction time for digits in consecutive and nonconsecutive memorized sets , 1970 .

[13]  D. W. Curtis,et al.  Relation between disjunctive reaction time and stimulus difference , 1973 .

[14]  D. Rosenbaum Rule use in character classification: Are serial and parallel processing discrete? , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[15]  R. Shepard,et al.  The internal representation of numbers , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  S. Sternberg Memory Scanning: New Findings and Current Controversies , 1975 .

[17]  W. O. Shaffer,et al.  Attending to forty-nine spatial positions at once. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Similarity as distance: A structural principle for semantic memory. , 1977 .

[19]  R. Shepard,et al.  Functional representations common to visual perception and imagination. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet , 1979 .

[21]  R N Shepard,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-Fitting, and Clustering , 1980, Science.

[22]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Different predictors of memory scanning with unidimensional and digit stimuli , 1980 .