A Dissociation Between Attention and Selection

It is widely assumed that the allocation of spatial attention results in the “selection” of attended objects or regions of space. That is, once a stimulus is attended, all its feature dimensions are processed irrespective of their relevance to behavioral goals. This assumption is based in part on experiments showing significant interference for attended stimuli when the response to an irrelevant dimension conflicts with the response to the relevant dimension (e.g., the Stroop effect). Here we show that such interference is not due to attending per se. In two spatial cuing experiments, we found that it was possible to restrict processing of attended stimuli to task-relevant dimensions. This new evidence supports two novel conclusions: (a) Selection involves more than the focusing of attention per se; and (b) task expectations play a key role in determining the depth of processing of the elementary feature dimensions of attended stimuli.

[1]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  M. C. Smith,et al.  The relationship between contextual facilitation and depth of processing. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  M. Posner,et al.  The attention system of the human brain. , 1990, Annual review of neuroscience.

[4]  A. Kramer,et al.  Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Derek Besner,et al.  Role of set in visual word recognition: Activation and activation blocking as nonautomatic processes. , 1996 .

[6]  S. Yantis,et al.  On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  J Tzelgov,et al.  Automatic processes in lexical access and spreading activation. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  A. Henik,et al.  Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[10]  G. Logan,et al.  Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention , 1996 .

[11]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Capacity demands of automatic processes in semantic priming , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[12]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  L. Paquet.  Global and local processing in nonattended objects: a failure to induce local processing dominance. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  P. Merikle,et al.  Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R W Proctor,et al.  Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Paul Maruff,et al.  Behavioral Goals Constrain the Selection of Visual Information , 1999 .

[18]  Roger W. Remington,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for two Types of Attention , 1995 .

[19]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Contextual facilitation in a letter search task depends on how the prime is processed. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  David E. Meyer,et al.  Using Repetition Detection to Define and Localize the Processes of Selective Attention , 1993 .

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

[23]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Complementary neural mechanisms for tracking items in human working memory. , 2000, Science.

[24]  R. Melara,et al.  Attentional selection of objects or features: Evidence from a modified search task , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  R W Remington,et al.  The structure of attentional control: contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Avishai Henik,et al.  The dependence of semantic relatedness effects upon prime processing , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Asher Cohen,et al.  Perceptual Dimensional Constraints in Response Selection Processes , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[29]  N. Lavie.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  G. Sperling,et al.  Is there feature-based attentional selection in visual search? , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Charles L. Folk,et al.  Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention? , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.