Literature DB >> 19757881

Attentional selection of noncontiguous locations: the spotlight is only transiently "split".

Julien Dubois1, Fred H Hamker, Rufin VanRullen.   

Abstract

It is still a matter of debate whether observers can attend simultaneously to more than one location. Using essentially the same paradigm as was used previously by N. P. Bichot, K. R. Cave, and H. Pashler (1999), we demonstrate that their finding of an attentional "split" between separate target locations only reflects the early phase of attentional selection. Our subjects were asked to compare the shapes (circle or square) of 2 oddly colored targets within an array of 8 stimuli. After a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), 8 letters were flashed at the previous stimulus locations, followed by a mask. For a given SOA, the performance of subjects at reporting letters in each location was taken to reflect the distribution of spatial attention. In particular, by considering the proportion of trials in which none or both of the target letters were reported, we were able to infer the respective amount of attention allocated to each target without knowing, on a trial-by-trial basis which location (if any) was receiving the most attentional resources. Our results show that for SOAs under 100-150 ms, attention can be equally split between the two targets, a conclusion compatible with previous reports. However, with longer SOAs, this attentional division can no longer be sustained and attention ultimately settles at the location of one single stimulus.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19757881     DOI: 10.1167/9.5.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  12 in total

1.  Aging, spatial cues, and single- versus dual-task performance in competing speech perception.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Jamie Chevalier; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Attention searches nonuniformly in space and in time.

Authors:  Laura Dugué; Douglas McLelland; Mathilde Lajous; Rufin VanRullen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Computational models of spatial updating in peri-saccadic perception.

Authors:  Fred H Hamker; Marc Zirnsak; Arnold Ziesche; Markus Lappe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Temporal dynamics of divided spatial attention.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Javier O Garcia; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Modulation of early cortical processing during divided attention to non-contiguous locations.

Authors:  Hans-Peter Frey; Anita M Schmid; Jeremy W Murphy; Sophie Molholm; Edmund C Lalor; John J Foxe
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  Flexible attention system: Appearance time of split attention changes in accordance with the task difficulty level.

Authors:  Guangyao Zu; Hanbin Sang; Heng Zhou; Fan Zhang; Xiaogang Wu; Aijun Wang; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 2.157

7.  The psychophysics of brain rhythms.

Authors:  Rufin Vanrullen; Julien Dubois
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-08-27

8.  Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches.

Authors:  Laura Dugué; Alice M Xue; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Peri-saccadic compression to two locations in a two-target choice saccade task.

Authors:  Markus Lappe; Fred H Hamker
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-06

10.  The whole is faster than its parts: evidence for temporally independent attention to distinct spatial locations.

Authors:  Andrew Clement; Nestor Matthews
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.