A delay in sampling information from temporally autocorrelated visual stimuli

Much of our world changes smoothly in time, yet the allocation of attention is typically studied with sudden changes – transients. A sizeable lag in selecting feature information is seen when stimuli change smoothly. Yet this lag is not seen with temporally uncorrelated rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stimuli. This suggests that temporal autocorrelation of a feature paradoxically increases the latency at which information is sampled. To test this, participants are asked to report the color of a disk when a cue was presented. There is an increase in selection latency when the disk’s color changed smoothly compared to randomly. This increase is due to the smooth color change presented after the cue rather than extrapolated predictions based on the color changes presented before. These results support an attentional drag theory, whereby attentional engagement is prolonged when features change smoothly. A computational model provides insights into the potential underlying neural mechanisms. When a cue is provided, people can rapidly attend to a changing scene and remember how it looked right after the cue appeared, but if the scene changes gradually, there is a delay in what we remember. Here the authors model these effects as prolonged attentional engagement.

[1]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  The speed of visual attention: what time is it? , 2006, Journal of vision.

[2]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Representation of Color Stimuli in Awake Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 2003, Neuron.

[3]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Constructing Experience: Event Models from Perception to Action , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Alex O Holcombe,et al.  "Pseudoextinction": asymmetries in simultaneous attentional selection. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  I. Motoyoshi,et al.  Temporal resolution of orientation-based texture segregation , 2001, Vision Research.

[6]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[7]  Garrett Swan,et al.  The binding pool: A model of shared neural resources for distinct items in visual working memory , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Ivan N Pigarev,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Visual Attention: How Top-Down Feedback Highlights Relevant Locations , 2007, Science.

[9]  G. Sperling,et al.  Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. , 1987, Science.

[10]  J. Enns,et al.  Object Updating and the Flash-Lag Effect , 2004, Psychological science.

[11]  S. Nishida,et al.  A common perceptual temporal limit of binding synchronous inputs across different sensory attributes and modalities , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Daniël Lakens,et al.  Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[13]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Changing objects lead briefly flashed ones , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  Rufin VanRullen,et al.  Bullet trains and steam engines: exogenous attention zips but endogenous attention chugs along. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[15]  A. Holcombe Seeing slow and seeing fast: two limits on perception , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[17]  S. Nishida,et al.  Marker Correspondence, Not Processing Latency, Determines Temporal Binding of Visual Attributes , 2002, Current Biology.

[18]  S. Yantis,et al.  Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  H J Müller,et al.  Spatial Cueing and the Relation between the Accuracy of “Where” and “What” Decisions in Visual Search , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[20]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain , 2000 .

[21]  G. Sperling,et al.  Attention gating in short-term visual memory. , 1986, Psychological review.

[22]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Event perception: a mind-brain perspective. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Temporal Selection is Suppressed, Delayed, and Diffused During the Attentional Blink , 2008, Psychological science.

[24]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks , 2013, Front. Psychology.

[25]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Independent, synchronous access to color and motion features , 2008, Cognition.

[26]  Thomas A Carlson,et al.  Timing divided attention. , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[27]  M. Nieuwenstein,et al.  The attentional blink provides episodic distinctiveness: sparing at a cost. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.