From searching for features to searching for threat: Drawing the boundary between preattentive and attentive vision

The distinction between preattentive and attentional processing has been a key element in many theories of attention, but there are conflicting claims as to which functions are performed preattentively, and which require attention. Recent studies suggest that stimuli associated with strong emotions or threat are effective at capturing and/or holding attention. Especially relevant for the question of preattentive vision are search experiments showing that emotional stimuli are sometimes found more quickly than neutral stimuli. An examination of these experiments indicates that there is no evidence that the threatening nature of stimuli is detected preattentively. There is evidence, however, that participants can learn to associate particular features, combinations of features, or configurations of lines with threat, and use them to guide search to threat-related targets. This debate highlights the importance of determining not only what information is encoded preattentively, but how target features that are used to guide search are specified.

[1]  C. H. Hansen,et al.  Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  D. Purcell,et al.  It Takes a Confounded Face to Pop Out of a Crowd , 1996, Perception.

[3]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

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

[5]  Alexander B. Bilsky,et al.  Parallel processing of park-whole information in visual search tasks , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[7]  A. Ohman,et al.  Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  K. Cave,et al.  Abstract stimuli associated with threat through conditioning cannot be detected preattentively. , 2005, Emotion.

[9]  B. Julesz,et al.  Human factors and behavioral science: Textons, the fundamental elements in preattentive vision and perception of textures , 1983, The Bell System Technical Journal.

[10]  W. Hoyer,et al.  Age, skill, and contextual cuing in target detection. , 2003, Psychology and aging.

[11]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Sensitivity To Three-Dimensional Orientation in Visual Search , 1990 .

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Automaticity and preattentive processing. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

[13]  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.

[14]  A. Flykt,et al.  Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. , 2001 .

[15]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. , 1991, Psychological review.

[16]  B. Julesz A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision , 1984, Trends in Neurosciences.

[17]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Limitations on the Parallel Guidance of Visual Search : Color x Color and Orientation x Orientation Conjuctions , 2004 .

[18]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The Psychophysical Evidence for a Binding Problem in Human Vision , 1999, Neuron.

[19]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Early completion of occluded objects , 1998, Vision Research.

[20]  T. Dalgleish,et al.  The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

[23]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[24]  Philip Quinlan,et al.  Searching for threat , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[25]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Influence of scene-based properties on visual search. , 1990, Science.

[26]  K. Cave The FeatureGate model of visual selection , 1999, Psychological research.

[27]  J. Eastwood,et al.  Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[30]  A. Ohman,et al.  The face in the crowd revisited: a threat advantage with schematic stimuli. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Refractor Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[32]  W. Schneider,et al.  Automatic attraction of attention to former targets in visual displays of letters , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  J. Wolfe Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  E. Fox,et al.  Facial Expressions of Emotion: Are Angry Faces Detected More Efficiently? , 2000, Cognition & emotion.

[35]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Attention, pattern recognition and popout in visual search , 1998 .

[36]  B. Julesz,et al.  Texton gradients: The texton theory revisited , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[37]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surfaces versus features in visual search , 1992, Nature.

[38]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Attentional bias in emotional disorders. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[39]  D. Purcell,et al.  Probing "pop-out": Another look at the face-in-the-crowd effect. , 1989 .

[40]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .