Literature DB >> 23558547

Attentional capture does not depend on feature similarity, but on target-nontarget relations.

Stefanie I Becker1, Charles L Folk, Roger W Remington.   

Abstract

What factors determine which stimuli of a scene will be visually selected and become available for conscious perception? The currently prevalent view is that attention operates on specific feature values, so attention will be drawn to stimuli that have features similar to those of the sought-after target. Here, we show that, instead, attentional capture depends on whether a distractor's feature relationships match the target-nontarget relations (e.g., redder). In three spatial-cuing experiments, we found that (a) a cue with the target color (e.g., orange) can fail to capture attention when the cue-cue-context relations do not match the target-nontarget relations (e.g., redder target vs. yellower cue), whereas (b) a cue with the nontarget color can capture attention when its relations match the target-nontarget relations (e.g., both are redder). These results support a relational account in which attention is biased toward feature relationships instead of particular feature values, and show that attentional capture by an irrelevant distractor does not depend on feature similarity, but rather depends on whether the distractor matches or mismatches the target's relative attributes (e.g., relative color).

Keywords:  attention; cognitive processes; color perception; visual attention; visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23558547     DOI: 10.1177/0956797612458528

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  23 in total

1.  Effect of distracting faces on visual selective attention in the monkey.

Authors:  Rogier Landman; Jitendra Sharma; Mriganka Sur; Robert Desimone
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Color-relation-based capture occurs globally.

Authors:  Huimin Hua; Jie Zhang; Yanju Li; Feng Du
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-04

3.  Sharper attentional tuning with target templates in long-term compared to working memory.

Authors:  Suk Won Han; Yoonki Min; Koeun Jung
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-03-22

4.  Gating by induced Α-Γ asynchrony in selective attention.

Authors:  David Pascucci; Alexis Hervais-Adelman; Gijs Plomp
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects.

Authors:  Christian Büsel; Martin Voracek; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-08-31

6.  Selection history is relative.

Authors:  Ming-Ray Liao; Mark K Britton; Brian A Anderson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The attentional blink: A relational accountof attentional engagement.

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker; Rheaa T Manoharan; Charles L Folk
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-09-28

Review 8.  Building Blocks of Psychology: on Remaking the Unkept Promises of Early Schools.

Authors:  Davood G Gozli; Wei Sophia Deng
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2018-03

9.  Neural responses to target features outside a search array are enhanced during conjunction but not unique-feature search.

Authors:  David R Painter; Paul E Dux; Susan L Travis; Jason B Mattingley
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  The attentional effects of single cues and color singletons on visual sensitivity.

Authors:  Alex L White; Rasmus Lunau; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.