Literature DB >> 10211397

Attentional interference at small spatial separations.

D O Bahcall1, E Kowler.   

Abstract

The spatial characteristics of attention were studied by measuring the accuracy with which two target letters could be identified from a circular display of 24 characters. Traditional notions of spatially-limited regions of attentional enhancement predict that performance should be best when the pair of targets fall within the boundaries of a single attentional 'window'. The results were opposite to this expectation: performance was poorest when the targets were close together and improved with increasing target separation. The effects were not due to lateral sensory masking or to sensory transients and were replicated with several different types of attentional cues. Two possible models are proposed to account for the observed effects of target separation. The first model assumes that attending to one location necessarily reduces processing in the local surround. The second model proposes that the poorer performance observed at small target separations results from imprecise targeting when attention is directed to a pair of nearby locations. Both models illustrate spatially-local limits on processing capacity that attention is unable to circumvent. Enhancement at one location is achieved primarily at the expense of the immediate surround. Such spatially-local tradeoffs in processing capacity could have the useful consequence of making the attended target stand out even more against the immediate background.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10211397     DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(98)00090-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  51 in total

1.  Attentional capture modulates perceptual sensitivity.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes; Arthur F Kramer; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

Review 2.  Visual attention as a multilevel selection process.

Authors:  Sabine Kastner; Mark A Pinsk
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision.

Authors:  J-M Hopf; C N Boehler; S J Luck; J K Tsotsos; H-J Heinze; M A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Nonspatial attributes of stimuli can influence spatial limitations of attentional control.

Authors:  Cathleen M Moore; Lyndsey K Lanagan-Leitzel; Peggy Chen; Rose Halterman; Elisabeth M Fine
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2007-04

5.  Quadrantic deficit reveals anatomical constraints on selection.

Authors:  Thomas A Carlson; George A Alvarez; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Localized attentional interference reflects competition for reentrant processing.

Authors:  Kelly S Steelman-Allen; Jason S McCarley; Jeffrey R W Mounts
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

7.  Using a filtering task to measure the spatial extent of selective attention.

Authors:  John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Spatial separation between targets constrains maintenance of attention on multiple objects.

Authors:  Won Mok Shim; George A Alvarez; Yuhong V Jiang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-04

Review 9.  The significance of microsaccades for vision and oculomotor control.

Authors:  Han Collewijn; Eileen Kowler
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-12-18       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 10.  Flexible cognitive resources: competitive content maps for attention and memory.

Authors:  Steven L Franconeri; George A Alvarez; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.