Novelty biases attention and gaze in a surprise trial

While the classical distinction between task-driven and stimulus-driven biasing of attention appears to be a dichotomy at first sight, there seems to be a third category that depends on the contrast or discrepancy between active representations and the upcoming stimulus, and may be termed novelty, surprise, or prediction failure. For previous demonstrations of the discrepancy-attention link, stimulus-driven components (saliency) may have played a decisive role. The present study was conducted to evaluate the discrepancy-attention link in a display where novel and familiar stimuli are equated for saliency. Eye tracking was used to determine fixations on novel and familiar stimuli as a proxy for attention. Results show a prioritization of attention by the novel color, and a de-prioritization of the familiar color, which is clearly present at the second fixation, and spans over the next couple of fixations. Saliency, on the other hand, did not prioritize items in the display. The results thus reinforce the notion that novelty captures and binds attention.

[1]  Ulrich Ansorge,et al.  Top-down contingent attentional capture during feed-forward visual processing. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[2]  A. Schützwohl,et al.  Surprise and schema strength , 1998 .

[3]  James W Bisley,et al.  The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Effects of stimulus–onset asynchrony and display duration on implicit and explicit measures of attentional capture by a surprising singleton , 2008 .

[5]  G. Horstmann.  Attentional capture by an unannounced color singleton depends on expectation discrepancy. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  S. Yantis,et al.  On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[8]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  A population coding account for systematic variation in saccadic dead time. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  J. Theeuwes.  Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[10]  E Levonian,et al.  Retention over time in relation to arousal during learning: an explantation of discrepant results. , 1972, Acta psychologica.

[11]  B. Gibson,et al.  Surprise! An Unexpected Color Singleton Does Not Capture Attention in Visual Search , 1998 .

[12]  C. Koch,et al.  A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention , 2000, Vision Research.

[13]  Rebecca M Foerster,et al.  Expectation violations in sensorimotor sequences: shifting from LTM‐based attentional selection to visual search , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[14]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

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

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

[17]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Involuntary Attentional Capture is Determined by Task Set: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[19]  K. Cave,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[23]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Novelty and saliency in attentional capture by unannounced motion singletons. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[24]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Attentional and oculomotor capture with static singletons , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  T. Rajaretnam,et al.  Statistics for social sciences , 2016 .

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

[27]  Bryan R. Burnham,et al.  Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of Return is a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search , 1999 .

[29]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  The time course of intended and unintended allocation of attention , 2006, Psychological research.

[30]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  Evidence for Attentional Capture by a Surprising Color Singleton in Visual Search , 2002, Psychological science.

[31]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Evidence for goal-independent attentional capture from validity effects with unexpected novel color cues—A response to Burnham (2007) , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  Visual Selective Attention and the Effects of Monetary Rewards , 2006, Psychological science.

[33]  Wolfgang Einhäuser,et al.  Attentional selection in visual perception, memory and action: a quest for cross-domain integration , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  The surprise–attention link: a review , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[35]  B. Gibson,et al.  Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for displaywide visual features. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  G. Horstmann,et al.  Attentional shifts to rare singletons , 2006 .

[37]  H. Deubel,et al.  Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism , 1996, Vision Research.

[38]  Arvid Herwig,et al.  Surprise attracts the eyes and binds the gaze , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.