Solving the paradox between same-object advantage and different-object advantage

The same-object advantage (SOA) effect is usually cited as evidence for object-based attention. However, the different-object advantage (DOA) effect, which appears to be the opposite of the SOA effect, has also been reported by some researchers. The present study was designed to resolve this apparent inconsistency. As the SOA effect has been well documented, here we focus on exploring when and why the DOA effect occurs. With a series of four experiments, we manipulated the identicality between two targets and found the SOA effect when the targets were different but the DOA effect when they were identical. These results demonstrate that the presence of SOA vs. DOA effects can be critically determined by the identicality between targets. Moreover, Experiment 4 provides direct evidence for our hypothesis that the DOA effect arises from the benefit of placing two identical targets in distinct objects (e.g., rectangles) that can help the differentiation between targets.

[1]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[2]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[3]  Su-Ling Yeh,et al.  Subliminal spatial cues capture attention and strengthen between-object link , 2011, Consciousness and Cognition.

[4]  R. Rafal,et al.  Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  H E Egeth,et al.  Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition? , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[7]  L. Hochhaus,et al.  Repetition blindness depends on perceptual capture and token individuation failure. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[9]  Harold Pashler,et al.  A Boolean map theory of visual attention. , 2007, Psychological review.

[10]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Exogenous attentional selection of transparent superimposed surfaces modulates early event-related potentials , 2005, Vision Research.

[11]  B. Scholl.  Objects and attention: the state of the art , 2001, Cognition.

[12]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  What is a visual object? Evidence from target merging in multiple object tracking , 2001, Cognition.

[13]  R A Abrams,et al.  Object-based visual attention with endogenous orienting , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J. Duncan.  Similarity between concurrent visual discriminations: Dimensions and objects , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  N Lavie,et al.  On the spatial extent of attention in object-based visual selection , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  J. Feldman,et al.  Perceptual comparison of features within and between objects: A new look , 2009, Vision Research.

[17]  R. Zemel,et al.  Object-Based Attention and Occlusion Evidence From Normal Participants and a Computational Model , 1998 .

[18]  Barry D. Vaughan,et al.  Object-Based Visual Selection: Evidence From Perceptual Completion , 1998 .

[19]  Brian J. Scholl,et al.  The role of closure in defining the “objects” of object-based attention , 2005 .

[20]  M. Chun,et al.  Types and tokens in visual processing: a double dissociation between the attentional blink and repetition blindness. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Ke Zhou,et al.  Cue Validity and Object-Based Attention , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Object-based selection: The role of attentional shifts , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  A F Kramer,et al.  Strategic effects on object-based attentional selection. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[27]  J. Duncan,et al.  Coordination of what and where in Visual Attention , 1993, Perception.

[28]  N. Kanwisher.  Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[29]  G. Davis,et al.  Can Attention Select Only a Fixed Number of Objects at a Time? , 2001, Perception.

[30]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  Attention: reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Greg Davis,et al.  Reversal of object-based benefits in visual attention , 2005 .

[32]  G. Davis.  Between-object binding and visual attention , 2001 .

[33]  Zhe Chen.  Object-based attention: A tutorial review , 2012, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[34]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Allocation of attention in the visual field. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Sarah Shomstein,et al.  Object-based attention: Sensory modulation or priority setting? , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  Morris Goldsmith,et al.  Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  Liqiang Huang,et al.  What is the unit of visual attention? Object for selection, but Boolean map for access. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[38]  Hyunkyu Lee,et al.  Attentional spreading in object-based attention. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.