Measuring attention using flash-lag effect.

We investigated the effect of attention on the flash-lag effect (FLE) in order to determine whether the FLE can be used to estimate the effect of visual attention. The FLE is the effect that a flash aligned with a moving object is perceived to lag the moving object, and several studies have shown that attention reduces its magnitude. We measured the FLE as a function of the number or speed of moving objects. The results showed that the effect of cueing, which we attributed the effect of attention, on the FLE increased monotonically with the number or the speed of the objects. This suggests that the amount of attention can be estimated by measuring the FLE, assuming that more amount of attention is required for a larger number or faster speed of objects to attend. On the basis of this presumption, we attempted to measure the spatial spread of visual attention by FLE measurements. The estimated spatial spreads were similar to those estimated by other experimental methods.

[1]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Attention-based motion perception. , 1992, Science.

[2]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli , 2000, Vision Research.

[4]  Markus Lappe,et al.  Temporal recruitment along the trajectory of moving objects and the perception of position , 1999, Vision Research.

[5]  A. Kramer,et al.  Splitting the Beam: Distribution of Attention Over Noncontiguous Regions of the Visual Field , 1995 .

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

[7]  Jason M. Scimeca,et al.  Tracking Multiple Objects Is Limited Only by Object Spacing, Not by Speed, Time, or Capacity , 2010, Psychological science.

[8]  R. Klein,et al.  Splitting versus sharing focal attention: comment on Castiello and Umiltà (1992). , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Terrence J Sejnowski,et al.  Motion signals bias localization judgments: a unified explanation for the flash-lag, flash-drag, flash-jump, and Frohlich illusions. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[10]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Motion extrapolation in catching , 1994, Nature.

[11]  D. Somers,et al.  Multiple Spotlights of Attentional Selection in Human Visual Cortex , 2004, Neuron.

[12]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Tracking the apparent location of targets in interpolated motion , 2000, Vision Research.

[13]  R Nijhawan,et al.  The Role of Attention in Motion Extrapolation: Are Moving Objects ‘Corrected’ or Flashed Objects Attentionally Delayed? , 2000, Perception.

[14]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Independent Resources for Attentional Tracking in the Left and Right Visual Hemifields , 2005, Psychological science.

[15]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Predictive perceptions, predictive actions, and beyond , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  I. Murakami,et al.  A flash-lag effect in random motion , 2001, Vision Research.

[17]  H. Pashler,et al.  Evidence for split attentional foci. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Limits of attentive tracking reveal temporal properties of attention , 2000, Vision Research.

[19]  M. Chappell,et al.  Dividing attention in the flash-lag illusion , 2007, Vision Research.

[20]  R. Rosenfeld.  Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[21]  P Cavanagh,et al.  The Position of Moving Objects , 2000, Science.

[22]  Brian D. Fisher,et al.  Evidence against a speed limit in multiple-object tracking , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  Hirohisa Yaguchi,et al.  Spatial Spread of Visual Attention while Tracking a Moving Object , 2007 .

[24]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  Extrapolation or attention shift? , 1995, Nature.

[25]  I. Murakami,et al.  The flash-lag effect as a spatiotemporal correlation structure. , 2001, Journal of vision.

[26]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  E. Brenner,et al.  Motion extrapolation is not responsible for the flash–lag effect , 2000, Vision Research.

[28]  Hirohisa Yaguchi,et al.  Smooth shifts of visual attention , 2002, Vision Research.

[29]  George A Alvarez,et al.  How many objects can you track? Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[30]  Trevor J. Hine,et al.  Attention ‘capture’ by the flash-lag flash , 2006, Vision Research.

[31]  B. Timney,et al.  Alcohol slows interhemispheric transmission, increases the flash-lag effect, and prolongs masking: Evidence for a slowing of neural processing and transmission , 2007, Vision Research.

[32]  D. LaBerge.  Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  S. A. Hillyard,et al.  Sustained division of the attentional spotlight , 2003, Nature.

[34]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Systematic eye movements do not account for the perception of motion during attentive tracking , 2001, Vision Research.

[35]  Z. Pylyshyn.  The Role of Visual Indexes in Spatial Vision and Imagery , 2002 .

[36]  I. Murakami,et al.  Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[37]  S. Klein,et al.  Evidence for an Attentional Component of the Perceptual Misalignment between Moving and Flashing Stimuli , 2002, Perception.

[38]  Marcus Vinícius C Baldo,et al.  The Modulation of the Flash-Lag Effect by Voluntary Attention , 2004, Perception.

[39]  Z W Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. , 1988, Spatial vision.