Literature DB >> 31236897

Opposing effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention in visual search.

Koeun Jung1, Suk Won Han2, Yoonki Min3.   

Abstract

When one searches for a specific target in a cluttered visual scene, a perceptually salient stimulus or a stimulus that matches working memory's contents is prioritized for attentional selection. In the present study, we aimed at clarifying under which circumstance stimulus-driven attention or memory-driven attention is more pronounced. We hypothesized that one crucial factor affecting stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention is how a concurrent visual search task is performed. To address this issue, we employed two visual search tasks whose underlying mechanisms are known to be different: Landolt-C search and orientation feature search. One group of participants performed visual search tasks containing a memory-matching stimulus, and the other group conducted searches in the presence of a salient singleton distractor. The results showed that the effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention differed, depending on the cognitive mechanisms underlying the visual search tasks. A memory-matching stimulus captured attention when participants performed the Landolt-C search, whereas this capture was diminished under feature search. In contrast, capture by the salient singleton distractor was found only under feature search. These results demonstrate that the nature of the underlying visual search tasks is an important factor for observing stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention. Our results also provide a potential solution to resolve current debate regarding memory-driven attention in visual search.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attentional control; Memory-driven attention; Stimulus-driven attention; Visual search

Year:  2020        PMID: 31236897     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01630-9

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


  29 in total

1.  Electrophysiological measurement of rapid shifts of attention during visual search.

Authors:  G F Woodman; S J Luck
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-08-26       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-02

3.  Perceptual selectivity for color and form.

Authors:  J Theeuwes
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-06

4.  Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search.

Authors:  L Chelazzi; J Duncan; E K Miller; R Desimone
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Opposing effects of memory-driven and stimulus-driven attention on distractor perception.

Authors:  Suk Won Han
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2017-09-04

Review 6.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

7.  Set-size effects in visual search: the effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks.

Authors:  J Palmer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture.

Authors:  W F Bacon; H E Egeth
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-05

9.  Working memory can guide pop-out search.

Authors:  David Soto; Glyn W Humphreys; Dietmar Heinke
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python.

Authors:  Jonathan W Peirce
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 2.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.