Literature DB >> 20053103

The fate of task-irrelevant visual motion: perceptual load versus feature-based attention.

Shuichiro Taya1, Wendy J Adams, Erich W Graf, Nilli Lavie.   

Abstract

We tested contrasting predictions derived from perceptual load theory and from recent feature-based selection accounts. Observers viewed moving, colored stimuli and performed low or high load tasks associated with one stimulus feature, either color or motion. The resultant motion aftereffect (MAE) was used to evaluate attentional allocation. We found that task-irrelevant visual features received less attention than co-localized task-relevant features of the same objects. Moreover, when color and motion features were co-localized yet perceived to belong to two distinct surfaces, feature-based selection was further increased at the expense of object-based co-selection. Load theory predicts that the MAE for task-irrelevant motion would be reduced with a higher load color task. However, this was not seen for co-localized features; perceptual load only modulated the MAE for task-irrelevant motion when this was spatially separated from the attended color location. Our results suggest that perceptual load effects are mediated by spatial selection and do not generalize to the feature domain. Feature-based selection operates to suppress processing of task-irrelevant, co-localized features, irrespective of perceptual load.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20053103     DOI: 10.1167/9.12.12

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


  12 in total

1.  Observers can voluntarily shift their psychometric functions without losing sensitivity.

Authors:  Michael Morgan; Barbara Dillenburger; Sabine Raphael; Joshua A Solomon
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Wohlgemuth was right: distracting attention from the adapting stimulus does not decrease the motion after-effect.

Authors:  Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Task-specific, dimension-based attentional shaping of motion processing in monkey area MT.

Authors:  Bastian Schledde; F Orlando Galashan; Magdalena Przybyla; Andreas K Kreiter; Detlef Wegener
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  A bias-free measure of retinotopic tilt adaptation.

Authors:  M J Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Motion adaptation does not depend on attention to the adaptor.

Authors:  Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Sustained attention is not necessary for velocity adaptation.

Authors:  Michael Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Dilution: atheoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010).

Authors:  Nilli Lavie; Ana Torralbo
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Blinded by the load: attention, awareness and the role of perceptual load.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie; Diane M Beck; Nikos Konstantinou
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  Attentional spreading to task-irrelevant object features: experimental support and a 3-step model of attention for object-based selection and feature-based processing modulation.

Authors:  Detlef Wegener; Fingal Orlando Galashan; Maike Kathrin Aurich; Andreas Kurt Kreiter
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 10.  Linking hypotheses underlying Class A and Class B methods.

Authors:  M J Morgan; D Melmoth; J A Solomon
Journal:  Vis Neurosci       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.