Literature DB >> 11916302

Object-based selection: the role of attentional shifts.

Dominique Lamy1, Howard Egeth.   

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to investigate under what conditions object-based effects are observed. Recently, Watson and Kramer (1999) used a divided-attention task and showed that unless top-down factors induce a bias toward selection at a higher level, object-based effects are obtained when same-object targets belong to the same uniformly connected (single-UC) region, but not when they belong to different single-UC regions grouped into a higher order object (grouped-UC regions). We refine this claim by proposing that a critical factor in determining whether or not object-based effects with grouped-UC regions are observed is the need to shift attention. The results of four experiments support this hypothesis. Stimuli and displays were similar to those used by Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994). Subjects had to make size judgments. Using different paradigms, we obtained object-based effects when the task required shifts of attention (spatial cuing, same vs. different judgment with asynchronous target onsets), but not when attention remained either broadly distributed (same vs. different judgment with simultaneous targets) or tightly focused (response competition paradigm).

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11916302     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  24 in total

1.  Overt and covert object-based attention.

Authors:  Jason S McCarley; Arthur F Kramer; Matthew S Peterson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

2.  Dynamics of feature binding during object-selective attention.

Authors:  M A Schoenfeld; C Tempelmann; A Martinez; J-M Hopf; C Sattler; H-J Heinze; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Attentional capture by auto- and allo-cues.

Authors:  Robert Rauschenberger
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-12

4.  Individual differences in multiple types of shifting attention.

Authors:  Tor D Wager; John Jonides; Edward E Smith
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-12

5.  Spatial attention facilitates selection of illusory objects: evidence from event-related brain potentials.

Authors:  Antígona Martínez; Wolfgang Teder-Salejarvi; Steven A Hillyard
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-12-23       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Automatic spread of attentional response modulation along Gestalt criteria in primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Aurel Wannig; Liviu Stanisor; Pieter R Roelfsema
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-18       Impact factor: 24.884

7.  Neural dynamics of object-based multifocal visual spatial attention and priming: object cueing, useful-field-of-view, and crowding.

Authors:  Nicholas C Foley; Stephen Grossberg; Ennio Mingolla
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects.

Authors:  Andrew Hollingworth; Ashleigh M Maxcey-Richard; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Dividing attention between two transparent motion surfaces results in a failure of selective attention.

Authors:  Zachary Raymond Ernst; John Palmer; Geoffrey M Boynton
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Moving stimuli guide retrieval and (in)validation of coordination simulations.

Authors:  Magda L Dumitru
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2014-03-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.