Literature DB >> 30796630

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements.

Matthew D Hilchey1, Victoria Antinucci2, Dominique Lamy3, Jay Pratt2.   

Abstract

The visual search and target-target cueing literatures have reached opposite conclusions about whether a shift of attention is biased toward or away from, respectively, previously attended target locations. In this article, we aimed to figure out why. The main differences between the two experimental approaches concern (1) the stimulus-response translation rules ("what" identification keypresses vs. "where" localization responses), (2) the amount of attention required in order to identify the target, and (3) distractor presence or absence. Experiment 1 tested the role of stimulus-response translation rules by requiring both an eye movement "where" response and a keypress "what" response to each target, in a typical search paradigm. Eye movements showed a bias away from the vicinity of the previous target, whereas keypresses showed a bias toward the previous target location, but only when the keypress response repeated. Experiment 2 removed the keypress identification requirement, to test whether reducing the amount of attention to the target would alter the eye movement bias; it did not. Experiment 3 removed the distractors, to test whether eliminating the potential for distractor location effects would alter the eye movement bias; it did, by accentuating the eye movement bias against the last target location. Collectively, the findings revealed that different stimulus-response translation rules and distractor-processing requirements are the main reasons for the discrepancy, while demonstrating that shifts of attention intrinsically tend away from prior target locations. The findings are generally consistent with episodic-retrieval and inhibited spatial-reorienting theories.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Episodic memory; Inhibition of reutrn; Priming; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30796630     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01569-x

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


  20 in total

1.  Understanding priming of color-singleton search: roles of attention at encoding and "retrieval".

Authors:  B A Goolsby; S Suzuki
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-08

2.  Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults.

Authors:  Srikant Jayaraman; Raymond M Klein; Matthew D Hilchey; Gouri Shanker Patil; Ramesh Kumar Mishra
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action.

Authors:  Bernhard Hommel
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action.

Authors:  S P Tipper; J C Brehaut; J Driver
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Location vs feature: reaction time reveals dissociation between two visual functions.

Authors:  Y Tanaka; S Shimojo
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position.

Authors:  V Maljkovic; K Nakayama
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-10

7.  Dissociating Orienting Biases From Integration Effects With Eye Movements.

Authors:  Matthew D Hilchey; Jason Rajsic; Greg Huffman; Raymond M Klein; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-01-03

Review 8.  Feature integration in basic detection and localization tasks: Insights from the attentional orienting literature.

Authors:  Greg Huffman; Matthew D Hilchey; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Target selection biases from recent experience transfer across effectors.

Authors:  Jeff Moher; Joo-Hyun Song
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations.

Authors:  Ahu Gokce; Thomas Geyer; Kathrin Finke; Hermann J Müller; Thomas Töllner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-02
View more
  1 in total

1.  Visual working memory load does not eliminate visuomotor repetition effects.

Authors:  Jason Rajsic; Matthew D Hilchey; Geoffrey F Woodman; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.199

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.