Relative Effectiveness of Central, Peripheral, and Abrupt-onset Cues in Visual Attention

The relative effectiveness of central arrow, peripheral arrow, and abrupt-onset cues was assessed in a character recognition task. On each trial, either a central or a peripheral arrow cue was presented 0, 100, or 200 msec before the appearance of a three-digit display. Two of the digits were “uncamouflaged” from previous figure-eight masks, whereas the third digit appeared abruptly in a previously empty space. Four different groups of subjects were run in factorial combinations of high or low expected validities for arrow and onset cues. In Experiment 1, arrow cues were located centrally, near the fixation point. Abrupt onsets showed larger cost-plus benefits than central arrows, except when subjects expected the central cues to have higher validity than the onsets. In Experiment 2, arrow cues were located peripherally, near the display digits, and abrupt onsets were again more effective in capturing attention except when peripheral cues had higher validity and led the onsets by 100 msec or more. In both experiments, the relative effectiveness of abrupt onsets decreased with arrow SOA. The results were consistent with a model in which automatic and voluntary processes interact in their control of attentional resources.

[1]  J. Theeuwes Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Luminance-increment detection: capacity-limited or not? , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. Klein,et al.  Is Posner's "beam" the same as Treisman's "glue"?: On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  J T Todd,et al.  Implications of a transient-sustained dichotomy for the measurement of human performance. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption , 1989 .

[9]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal course of selective attention. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  J. Juola,et al.  Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[14]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology , 1993 .

[15]  J. Jonides Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement , 1981 .

[16]  M. Cheal,et al.  Importance of precue location in directing attention. , 1991, Acta psychologica.