Literature DB >> 15732696

Changing features do not guide attention in change detection: evidence from a spatial cuing paradigm.

Jennifer A Stolz1, Pierre Jolicoeur.   

Abstract

Smilek, Eastwood, and Merikle (2000) demonstrated that the detection of change was facilitated when the target character changed in many rather than few of its features. Specifically, the function relating search response time to display set size was shallower when more features changed than when fewer features changed. The researchers interpreted these results as indicating that large feature changes provide preattentive guidance of focal attention to the location of the change. We tested this preattentive guidance hypothesis by examining change detection performance in the context of a spatial cuing paradigm. The hypothesis predicts that (1) the cost on invalidly cued trials should be less when more features change than when fewer features change, and (2) the features manipulation should have no effect on validly cued trials. In contrast to these predictions, our results show that cuing effects are equivalent across all levels of feature change and that a robust effect of the features manipulation is observable for both validly and invalidly cued trials. We argue that large feature changes do not provide preattentive guidance and in fact can be detected more readily after attention is already in place at the target location.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15732696     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  7 in total

1.  Does unattended information facilitate change detection?

Authors:  D Smilek; J D Eastwood; P M Merikle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  An implicit measure of undetected change.

Authors:  I M Thornton; D Fernandez-Duque
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2000

3.  The siren song of implicit change detection.

Authors:  Stephen R Mitroff; Daniel J Simons; Steven L Franconeri
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-06

5.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

6.  Familiarity and visual change detection.

Authors:  H Pashler
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1988-10

7.  Orienting of attention.

Authors:  M I Posner
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 2.143

  7 in total
  2 in total

1.  Is It Implicit Detection or Perception During Change Blindness?

Authors:  Wang Xiang
Journal:  Psychol Res Behav Manag       Date:  2020-11-24

2.  Weight Bias 2.0: The Effect of Perceived Weight Change on Performance Evaluation and the Moderating Role of Anti-fat Bias.

Authors:  Yueting Ji; Qianyao Huang; Haiyang Liu; Caleb Phillips
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-07-16
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.