People have the power: priority of socially relevant stimuli in a change detection task

Change detection performance is influenced by a number of factors, among which is the informativeness of targets. It has not been clarified, yet, whether the highly informative regions have a processing priority as a result of resource deployment from other tasks or whether it results from a better resource management. In this paper, we adopted a change detection paradigm in which thirty participants were randomly assigned to two groups: single (change detection task) and dual task [change detection and a simplified version of the Paced Auditory Serial Oppository Task (PASOT, Gow and Deary in J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 26:723–736, 2004), which implies a verbal effort]. Stimulus informativeness was defined as social relevance, that is, changing targets were people (high relevance) versus objects (low relevance), all other aspects (i.e., salience and position in the scene) kept constant. As hypothesized, data analyses showed a significant main effect of social relevance and task condition, i.e., better change detection performance and lower change detection times for people versus objects and for single than for dual task condition. Interestingly, the PASOT accuracy remained stable across the person versus object trials, thus implying that the better performance with socially relevant targets could not be explained by a resources withdrawal from the secondary task.

[1]  I. Deary,et al.  Is the PASAT Past It? Testing Attention and Concentration Without Numbers , 2004, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[2]  M. Tarr,et al.  How Are Different Properties of a Scene Encoded in Visual Memory? , 2000 .

[3]  D. Norman,et al.  Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior Technical Report No. 8006. , 1980 .

[4]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Change detection in the flicker paradigm: Do faces have an advantage? , 2003 .

[5]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[6]  C. Koch,et al.  Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Daniel J. Simons,et al.  Current Approaches to Change Blindness , 2000 .

[8]  C. Reed,et al.  Are human bodies represented differently from other objects? Experience shapes object representations , 2004 .

[9]  E. Fox,et al.  The role of visual processes in modulating social interactions , 2005 .

[10]  G. Bateson,et al.  STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND COLLECTED ESSAYS IN ANTHROPOLOGY, PSYCHIATRY, EVOLUTION, AND EPISTEMOLOGY , 2006 .

[11]  R. Lagasse,et al.  To see or not to see. , 2006, Anesthesiology.

[12]  N. Lavie,et al.  The Role of Perceptual Load in Processing Distractor Faces , 2003, Psychological science.

[13]  C. Espie,et al.  Who is pre‐occupied with sleep? A comparison of attention bias in people with psychophysiological insomnia, delayed sleep phase syndrome and good sleepers using the induced change blindness paradigm , 2006, Journal of sleep research.

[14]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Detection of animals in natural images using far peripheral vision , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

[15]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[16]  Ronald A. Rensink Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing , 2000, Vision Research.

[17]  G. Schwartz,et al.  Consciousness and Self-Regulation , 1976 .

[18]  Maggie Shiffrar,et al.  A Social Visual System , 2004 .

[19]  C. Koch The quest for consciousness : a neurobiological approach , 2004 .

[20]  P. Perona,et al.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  J. Henderson,et al.  Semantic Informativeness Mediates the Detection of Changes in Natural Scenes , 2000 .

[22]  R. VanRullen Visual saliency and spike timing in the ventral visual pathway , 2003, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[23]  Jianfeng Feng,et al.  Computational neuroscience , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  N. Lavie,et al.  Changing Faces: A Detection Advantage in the Flicker Paradigm , 2001, Psychological science.

[25]  T. A. Kelley,et al.  Effects of scene inversion on change detection of targets matched for visual salience. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[26]  I. Rock,et al.  Inattentional blindness: An overview , 2003 .

[27]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Attending but not seeing: The "other race" effect in face and person perception studied through change blindness , 2005 .

[28]  P. Perona,et al.  Why does natural scene categorization require little attention? Exploring attentional requirements for natural and synthetic stimuli , 2005 .

[29]  Tony Ro,et al.  Attentional biases for faces and body parts , 2007 .

[30]  C. Koch,et al.  Competition and selection during visual processing of natural scenes and objects. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[31]  Laurent Itti,et al.  Modelling Primate Visual Attention , 2003 .

[32]  Michael S. Ambinder,et al.  Change blindness , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  P. Pearson,et al.  Toupee or not toupee? The role of instructional set, centrality, and relevance in change blindness , 2005 .

[34]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Top-down control of visual attention in object detection , 2003, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[35]  A. Friedman Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  C. Koch The Quest for Consciousness , 2004 .

[37]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Attention to Action , 1986 .

[38]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  The Need for Attention to See Changes in Scenes (特集:インフォメ-ションセ-フティ) , 1997 .

[39]  J. Antes The time course of picture viewing. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[40]  S. Werner,et al.  Is "Change Blindness" Attenuated by Domain-specific Expertise? An Expert-Novices Comparison of Change Detection in Football Images , 2000 .

[41]  Jan B F van Erp,et al.  Vibro-Tactile and Visual Asynchronies: Sensitivity and Consistency , 2004, Perception.

[42]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple resources and performance prediction , 2002 .

[43]  J. Henderson,et al.  The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing , 1999 .

[44]  Ronald A. Rensink Change detection. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.