Attention and the detection of signals.

Detection of a visual signal requires information to reach a system capable of eliciting arbitrary responses required by the experimenter. Detection latencies are reduced when subjects receive a cue that indicates where in the visual field the signal will occur. This shift in efficiency appears to be due to an alignment (orienting) of the central attentional system with the pathways to be activated by the visual input. It would also be possible to describe these results as being due to a reduced criterion at the expected target position. However, this description ignores important constraints about the way in which expectancy improves performance. First, when subjects are cued on each trial, they show stronger expectancy effects than when a probable position is held constant for a block, indicating the active nature of the expectancy. Second, while information on spatial position improves performance, information on the form of the stimulus does not. Third, expectancy may lead to improvements in latency without a reduction in accuracy. Fourth, there appears to be little ability to lower the criterion at two positions that are not spatially contiguous. A framework involving the employment of a limited-capacity attentional mechanism seems to capture these constraints better than the more general language of criterion setting. Using this framework, we find that attention shifts are not closely related to the saccadic eye movement system. For luminance detection the retina appears to be equipotential with respect to attention shifts, since costs to unexpected stimuli are similar whether foveal or peripheral. These results appear to provide an important model system for the study of the relationship between attention and the structure of the visual system.

[1]  O. Mowrer,et al.  Preparatory set (expectancy)--further evidence of its 'central' locus. , 1941 .

[2]  S. Hecht,et al.  ENERGY, QUANTA, AND VISION , 1942, The Journal of general physiology.

[3]  E. Lamar,et al.  Quanta and Vision , 1948 .

[4]  J J MERTENS,et al.  Influence of knowledge of target location upon the probability of observation of peripherally observable test flashes. , 1956, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[5]  E. N. Solokov Perception and the conditioned reflex , 1963 .

[6]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[7]  N Moray,et al.  Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[8]  D. Norman Toward a theory of memory and attention. , 1968 .

[9]  Valerie Townsend,et al.  Voluntary Attention in Peripheral Vision and its Effects on Acuity and Differential Thresholds , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  M. Russell Harter,et al.  Effects of attention and arousal on visually evoked cortical potentials and reaction time in man , 1969 .

[11]  F. L. Engel Visual conspicuity, directed attention and retinal locus. , 1971, Vision research.

[12]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Visual processing capacity and attentional control. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  R. Wurtz,et al.  Activity of superior colliculus in behaving monkey. II. Effect of attention on neuronal responses. , 1972, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[15]  S. Jay Samuels,et al.  Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading , 1974 .

[16]  Joseph S. Lappin,et al.  Does prior knowledge facilitate the detection of visual targets in random noise? , 1976 .

[17]  R. Wurtz,et al.  Organization of monkey superior colliculus: enhanced visual response of superficial layer cells. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  R Sekuler,et al.  Mental set alters visibility of moving targets , 1977, Science.

[19]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Visual evoked potentials and selective attention to points in space , 1977 .

[20]  M. Shaw,et al.  Optimal allocation of cognitive resources to spatial locations. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  M. Posner Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

[22]  William C. Ogden,et al.  Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location , 2014 .

[23]  G. Shulman,et al.  Moving attention through visual space. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  John Duncan,et al.  The demonstration of capacity limitation , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.