Attention searches nonuniformly in space and in time

Significance Visual search is one of the primary tools to study attention in experimental psychology, yet the spatiotemporal behavior of attention during search remains controversial: Does attention focus on one item at a time or several, or even all, items? We used an innovative methodology that relies on simple yet elegant mathematical reasoning and only assumes (like most other attentional studies) that attentional strength is reflected in behavioral performance. We provide evidence against a strict parallel model in space and for an attentional periodicity in time: Attention during a difficult search task was nonuniformly allocated both in space, focusing on one stimulus or subgroup of stimuli at a time, and in time, with this deployment being periodically modulated at ∼7 Hz. Difficult search tasks are known to involve attentional resources, but the spatiotemporal behavior of attention remains unknown. Are multiple search targets processed in sequence or in parallel? We developed an innovative methodology to solve this notoriously difficult problem. Observers performed a difficult search task during which two probes were flashed at varying delays. Performance in reporting probes at each location was considered a measure of attentional deployment. By solving a second-degree equation, we determined the probability of probe report at the most and least attended probe locations on each trial. Because these values differed significantly, we conclude that attention was focused on one stimulus or subgroup of stimuli at a time, and not divided uniformly among all search stimuli. Furthermore, this deployment was modulated periodically over time at ∼7 Hz. These results provide evidence for a nonuniform spatiotemporal deployment of attention during difficult search.

[1]  John Palmer,et al.  Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  The blinking spotlight of attention , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[4]  J. Palmer,et al.  Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Y. Saalmann,et al.  Rhythmic Sampling within and between Objects despite Sustained Attention at a Cued Location , 2013, Current Biology.

[6]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The temporal dynamics of visual search: evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Rufin VanRullen,et al.  Attentional selection of noncontiguous locations: the spotlight is only transiently "split". , 2009, Journal of vision.

[8]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  N. P. Bichot,et al.  Visual selection mediated by location: Feature-based selection of noncontiguous locations , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  R. VanRullen Visual Attention: A Rhythmic Process? , 2013, Current Biology.

[11]  P. Fries,et al.  Attention Samples Stimuli Rhythmically , 2012, Current Biology.

[12]  Thomas L. Thornton,et al.  Parallel and serial processes in visual search. , 2007, Psychological review.

[13]  Rufin van Rullen,et al.  Theta Oscillations Modulate Attentional Search Performance Periodically , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  G Sperling,et al.  The attention operating characteristic: examples from visual search. , 1978, Science.

[15]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Signal detection theory applied to three visual search tasks--identification, yes/no detection and localization. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[16]  J. Townsend Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and Should) be Distinguished , 1990 .

[17]  E. Miller,et al.  Serial, Covert Shifts of Attention during Visual Search Are Reflected by the Frontal Eye Fields and Correlated with Population Oscillations , 2009, Neuron.

[18]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: The extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry , 2012, Vision Research.

[19]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Characterizing visual performance fields: effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size. , 2001, Spatial vision.

[20]  H. Nothdurft Focal attention in visual search , 1999, Vision Research.

[21]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  R. VanRullen,et al.  Spontaneous EEG oscillations reveal periodic sampling of visual attention , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Vertical meridian asymmetry in spatial resolution: Visual and attentional factors , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Karen R Dobkins,et al.  Attentional weighting: a possible account of visual field asymmetries in visual search? , 2004, Spatial vision.

[25]  Laura Dugué,et al.  The dynamics of attentional sampling during visual search revealed by Fourier analysis of periodic noise interference. , 2014, Journal of vision.

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

[27]  P. Verghese Visual Search and Attention A Signal Detection Theory Approach , 2001, Neuron.

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