Literature DB >> 21901513

Motion onset does not capture attention when subsequent motion is "smooth".

Meera Mary Sunny1, Adrian von Mühlenen.   

Abstract

Previous research on the attentional effects of moving objects has shown that motion per se does not capture attention. However, in later studies it was argued that the onset of motion does capture attention. Here, we show that this motion-onset effect critically depends on motion jerkiness--that is, the rate at which the moving stimulus is refreshed. Experiment 1 used search displays with a static, a motion-onset, and an abrupt-onset stimulus, while systematically varying the refresh rate of the moving stimulus. The results showed that motion onset only captures attention when subsequent motion is jerky (8 and 17 Hz), not when it is smooth (33 and 100 Hz). Experiment 2 replaced motion onset with continuous motion, showing that motion jerkiness does not affect how continuous motion is processed. These findings do not support accounts that assume a special role for motion onset, but they are in line with the more general unique-event account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21901513     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0152-3

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


  20 in total

1.  Attentional capture and inattentional blindness.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Perceptual causality and animacy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Motion onset captures attention.

Authors:  Richard A Abrams; Shawn E Christ
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2003-09

Review 4.  Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2010-05-26

5.  Unique temporal change is the key to attentional capture.

Authors:  Adrian Mühlenen; Mark I Rempel; James T Enns
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-12

6.  Motion onset captures attention: a rejoinder to Franconeri and Simons (2005).

Authors:  Richard A Abrams; Shawn E Christ
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2006-01

7.  Onset but not offset of irrelevant motion disrupts inhibition of return.

Authors:  Richard A Abrams; Shawn E Christ
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-11

8.  Prioritization of looming and receding objects: equal slopes, different intercepts.

Authors:  Paul A Skarratt; Geoff G Cole; Angus R H Gellatly
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Capture of attention by new motion in young and older adults.

Authors:  Shawn E Christ; Alan D Castel; Richard A Abrams
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.077

10.  Visual motion and attentional capture.

Authors:  A P Hillstrom; S Yantis
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-04
View more
  5 in total

1.  Diminished distractor exclusion for magnocellular features near the hand.

Authors:  Tony Thomas; Meera Mary Sunny
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The oculomotor salience of flicker, apparent motion and continuous motion in saccade trajectories.

Authors:  Wieske van Zoest; Benedetta Heimler; Francesco Pavani
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Early, but not late visual distractors affect movement synchronization to a temporal-spatial visual cue.

Authors:  Ashley J Booth; Mark T Elliott
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-24

4.  Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Steven L Mansberger
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 3.048

5.  The role of unique color changes and singletons in attention capture.

Authors:  Adrian von Mühlenen; Markus Conci
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.199

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.