Detection is unaffected by the deployment of focal attention

There has been much debate regarding how much information humans can extract from their environment without the use of limited attentional resources. In a recent study, Theeuwes et al. (2008) argued that even detection of simple feature targets is not possible without selection by focal attention. Supporting this claim, they found response time (RT) benefits in a simple feature (color) detection task when a target letter's identity was repeated on consecutive trials, suggesting that the letter was selected by focal attention and identified prior to detection. This intertrial repetition benefit remained even when observers were required to simultaneously identify a central digit. However, we found that intertrial repetition benefits disappeared when a simple color target was presented among a heterogeneously (rather than homogeneously) colored set of distractors, thus reducing its bottom–up salience. Still, detection performance remained high. Thus, detection performance was unaffected by whether a letter was focally attended and identified prior to detection or not. Intertrial identity repetition benefits also disappeared when observers were required to perform a simultaneous, attention-demanding central task (Experiment 2), or when unfamiliar Chinese characters were used (Experiment 3). Together, these results suggest that while shifts of focal attention can be affected by target salience, by the availability of excess cognitive resources, and by target familiarity, detection performance itself is unaffected by these manipulations and is thus unaffected by the deployment of focal attention.

[1]  E. C. Cherry Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1953 .

[2]  J. Deutsch Perception and Communication , 1958, Nature.

[3]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

[4]  A. Treisman VERBAL CUES, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING IN SELECTIVE ATTENTION. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  W H Teichner,et al.  Laws of visual choice reaction time. , 1974, Psychological review.

[6]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[8]  J. Duncan Boundary Conditions on Parallel Processing in Human Vision , 1989, Perception.

[9]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[10]  L. Cooper,et al.  Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  D. Sagi,et al.  Vision outside the focus of attention , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  On the locus of visual selection: evidence from focused attention tasks , 1990 .

[14]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  On the locus of visual selection: evidence from focused attention tasks. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J. Theeuwes Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Michael D'Zmura,et al.  Color in visual search , 1991, Vision Research.

[17]  M. Bravo,et al.  The role of attention in different visual-search tasks , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  J. Wolfe “Effortless” texture segmentation and “parallel” visual search are not the same thing , 1992, Vision Research.

[19]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[20]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

[21]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  H. Egeth,et al.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  M. Potter,et al.  A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  K. Cave,et al.  Spatial Attention in Visual Search for Features and Feature Conjunctions , 1995 .

[26]  N. Lavie Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  W. Cowan,et al.  Visual search for colour targets that are or are not linearly separable from distractors , 1996, Vision Research.

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

[29]  S. Luck,et al.  On the role of selective attention in visual perception. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  B. Julesz,et al.  Withdrawing attention at little or no cost: Detection and discrimination tasks , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  E. Viding,et al.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  H. Pashler,et al.  Repetition priming in visual search: Episodic retrieval, not feature priming , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[33]  H. Pashler,et al.  Attention capacity and task difficulty in visual search , 2005, Cognition.

[34]  Marianna D. Eddy,et al.  Masked repetition priming and event-related brain potentials: a new approach for tracking the time-course of object perception. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[35]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[36]  Katherine J. Midgley,et al.  On the time course of letter perception: A masked priming ERP investigation , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 4.0: Current Progress With a Model of Visual Search , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[38]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Priming of pop-out depends upon the current goals of observers. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[39]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Detecting the presence of a singleton involves focal attention , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[41]  C. Olivers,et al.  A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. , 2008, Psychological review.

[42]  Carly J. Leonard,et al.  The role of attention in subitizing: Is the magical number 1? , 2008 .

[43]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[44]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Diluting the burden of load: perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention , 2010, Vision Research.

[46]  A. Caramazza,et al.  On the speed of pop-out in feature search. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.