Searching for two feature singletons in the visual scene: the localized attentional interference effect

The localized attentional interference (LAI) effect was investigated in a visual search task requiring participants to simultaneously monitor two spatially separated features from the same or different dimensions. In Experiment 1, the search type was blocked and targets were defined by fixed feature values in two dimensions (e.g., a yellow item and a circular item). In contrast, in Experiment 2, participants had to look for a color and a form singleton, with the exact feature values varying randomly across trials. In both experiments, reaction times (RTs) were generally slower when two features were CLOSE to, rather than DISTANT from, each other. Moreover, RTs to CLOSE stimuli increased as the search set size increased, while RTs to DISTANT stimuli were unaffected by set size. Experiment 3 also used a singleton search task, but with the two singletons defined either in different dimensions or in the same dimension. A larger interference effect for CLOSE, as compared to DISTANT, stimuli was found for cross-dimension than for intra-dimension targets. These findings suggest that neighboring items, irrespective of whether these items are from the same or different dimensions, interfere with each other in attentional selection, and that searching for two cross-dimension targets may engage a process of dimension switching to effectively solve the ambiguity of each item, especially when these items are close to each other.

[1]  Xiaolin Zhou,et al.  Center of mass attracts attention , 2006, Neuroreport.

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

[3]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Mechanisms of directed attention in the human extrastriate cortex as revealed by functional MRI. , 1998, Science.

[4]  R. Desimone,et al.  Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. , 1985, Science.

[5]  Scott D Slotnick,et al.  Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight , 2002, Neuroreport.

[6]  S. Luck,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Monkey Neurophysiology and Human Perception: An Ambiguity Resolution Theory of Visual Selective Attention , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  D. Sagi,et al.  Texture-Based Tasks are Little Affected by Second Tasks Requiring Peripheral or Central Attentive Fixation , 1991, Perception.

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

[9]  Dennis M Levi,et al.  Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in foveal vision: foveal crowding is simple contrast masking. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[10]  John Duncan,et al.  A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex , 1993, Nature.

[11]  John M. Findlay,et al.  The spatial signal for saccadic eye movements emphasizes visual boundaries , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  G. Caputo,et al.  Attentional selection by distractor suppression , 1998, Vision Research.

[13]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  N. Lavie.  Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[16]  J. R. Mounts,et al.  Competition for representation is mediated by relative attentional salience. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[17]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Increased Activity in Human Visual Cortex during Directed Attention in the Absence of Visual Stimulation , 1999, Neuron.

[18]  Jens Schwarzbach,et al.  Attentional inhibition of visual processing in human striate and extrastriate cortex , 2003, NeuroImage.

[19]  H. Müller,et al.  Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  J. R. Mounts,et al.  Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  H. Müller,et al.  Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Modulation of sensory suppression: implications for receptive field sizes in the human visual cortex. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  H J Müller,et al.  Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  K. Cave,et al.  Flexibility in Spatial Attention Before and After Practice , 1997 .

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

[26]  R. Desimone,et al.  Competitive Mechanisms Subserve Attention in Macaque Areas V2 and V4 , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: parallel-coactive processing of dimensions is location specific. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  J. Theeuwes.  Perceptual selectivity for color and form , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Eileen Kowler,et al.  Attentional interference at small spatial separations , 1999, Vision Research.

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

[31]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Attention to adjacent and separate positions in space: An electrophysiological analysis , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  The selective tuning model of attention: psychophysical evidence for a suppressive annulus around an attended item , 2003, Vision Research.

[33]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  J. R. Mounts.  Evidence for suppressive mechanisms in attentional selection: Feature singletons produce inhibitory surrounds , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[35]  S. Klein,et al.  Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in peripheral vision: peripheral crowding is neither size invariant nor simple contrast masking. , 2002, Journal of vision.

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

[37]  Brandon E Gavett,et al.  The role of salience in localized attentional interference , 2004, Vision Research.

[38]  B. Julesz,et al.  Detection versus Discrimination of Visual Orientation , 1984, Perception.

[39]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Receptive field size-dependent attention effects in simultaneously presented stimulus displays , 2006, NeuroImage.

[40]  Xiaolin Zhou,et al.  Processing multidimensional objects under different perceptual loads: The priority of bottom-up perceptual saliency , 2006, Brain Research.

[41]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Dimension‐specific intertrial facilitation in visual search for pop‐out targets: Evidence for a top‐down modulable visual short‐term memory effect , 2004 .

[42]  J. McCarley,et al.  Age-related differences in localized attentional interference. , 2004, Psychology and aging.