Movement and visual attention: the spotlight metaphor breaks down.

The interfering effects of distractor letters are known to diminish with increasing distance from the target letter (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). This result is held to support spotlight models in which visual attention can only be assigned to contiguous regions of the visual field. However, the result is also consistent with the rival claim that attention is assigned to perceptual groups. Four experiments show that grouping of target and distractors by common motion can have more influence than their proximity. Distant distractor letters that move with a target letter produce more interference than static distractors that are nearer the target. Near distractors are equally ineffective if the target is static while they move. These results imply that attention is directed to perceptual groups whose components may be spatially dispersed. The spotlight metaphor seems inappropriate for visual attention in a dynamic environment.

[1]  P. Merikle,et al.  On the selective effects of a patterned masking stimulus. , 1971, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[3]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[4]  William K. Estes,et al.  Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters , 1974 .

[5]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[6]  R. Carpenter,et al.  Movements of the Eyes , 1978 .

[7]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within thedisplay impair processing? , 1979 .

[8]  J. Duncan.  The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. , 1980 .

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

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

[11]  W Prinzmetal,et al.  Principles of feature integration in visual perception , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Irvin Rock,et al.  The effect of inattention on form perception. , 1981 .

[13]  D. Broadbent.  Task combination and selective intake of information. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  H E Egeth,et al.  Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition? , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  A. Treisman.  Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  D C Van Essen,et al.  Functional properties of neurons in middle temporal visual area of the macaque monkey. I. Selectivity for stimulus direction, speed, and orientation. , 1983, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  H. Barlow.  Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[19]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  S. Tipper.  The Negative Priming Effect: Inhibitory Priming by Ignored Objects , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[21]  A. van der Heijden,et al.  Target-noise separation in visual selective attention. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

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

[23]  Jon Driver,et al.  Visual search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel , 1988, Nature.