Size scaling and spatial factors in visual attention.

This study investigates the effect of the visibility of near and far letter distractors on target processing by scaling the size of the distractor letters to compensate for changes in resolution across the visual field. In Experiment 1, scaled and unscaled distractors were presented at varied stimulus onset asynchronies. Results showed that scaling the size of distractor letters in relation to their distance from the target was effective in producing strong compatibility effects. Scaled distractors presented prior to, or simultaneously with, the target were found to interfere with target processing whether they were near or far from the target. Experiment 2 used scaled distractors and varied the presentation location and the amount of time for processing prior to the presentation of the target. Compatibility effects were found to vary by location and by the exposure duration of the distractor. The finding of distance effects at far locations supports a space-based visual-attention mechanism with a wide attention beam (Steinman, Steinman, & Lehmkuhle, 1995).

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

[2]  David Whitaker,et al.  The influence of eccentricity on position and movement acuities as revealed by spatial scaling , 1992, Vision Research.

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

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

[5]  D E Broadbent,et al.  Spatial Factors in Visual Attention: Some Compensatory Effects of Location and Time of Arrival of Nontargets , 1987, Perception.

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

[7]  Kieran Coyle.  The Relationship between Time of Arrival of Nontargets and Their Spatial Location: Evidence for Asymmetries in Visual Attentional Processing , 1994, Perception.

[8]  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.

[9]  S M Anstis,et al.  Letter: A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. , 1974, Vision research.

[10]  C. J. Downing.  Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: effects on perceptual quality. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  H. Egeth,et al.  Failure of spatial selectivity in vision , 1978 .

[12]  R Näsänen,et al.  Cortical magnification and peripheral vision. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[13]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[14]  P. Goolkasian,et al.  Size scaling and its effect on letter detection , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  Scott B. Steinman,et al.  Visual attention mechanisms show a center—surround organization , 1995, Vision Research.