Literature DB >> 8838166

Attentional tracking and inhibition of return in dynamic displays.

H J Müller1, A von Mühlenen.   

Abstract

Seven experiments were conducted to replicate, and extend, a finding by Tipper, Driver, and Weaver (1991). They reported evidence for dynamic, object-centered inhibition of return (IOR)--that is, coding of inhibition following a peripheral cue in coordinates that move with the previously cued object, providing a dynamic bias against reattending to that object. The present experiments used a variation of Posner and Cohen's (1984) spatial cuing paradigm. Subjects responded manually (simple reaction time) to a luminance increment in one of two peripheral boxes, one of which had previously been cued (brightened). Experiments 1, 2, and 5 replicated the standard (environmental) IOR effect when the display was stationary. IOR was more marked for right-side targets than for left-side targets and tended to be affected by the compatibility between response hand and (cued) target position. However, when the boxes moved around the display center (Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), contrary to Tipper et al., there was no evidence of dynamic, object-centered IOR. Rather, there was strong evidence of attentive tracking of whatever box happened to move from left to right, irrespective of the direction of its motion (clockwise or counterclockwise) and whether it was more likely to contain the target than the other (right-to-left moving) box. There was a tendency for left-to-right tracking to be more marked with right-hand responses, pointing to the existence of a dynamic stimulus-response compatibility effect. The implications of the present findings for the role of attentive tracking and IOR in dynamic scenes are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8838166     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  44 in total

1.  Attention-based motion perception.

Authors:  P Cavanagh
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-09-11       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Splitting focal attention.

Authors:  U Castiello; C Umiltà
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Mechanisms of attentional selection: temporally modulated priority tags.

Authors:  S Yantis; E Jones
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1991-08

4.  Dissociation of short- and long-range apparent motion in visual search.

Authors:  R B Ivry; A Cohen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism.

Authors:  Z W Pylyshyn; R W Storm
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1988

6.  A short-range process in apparent motion.

Authors:  O Braddick
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention.

Authors:  S P Tipper; B Weaver; L M Jerreat; A L Burak
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search.

Authors:  S Yantis; J Jonides
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers.

Authors:  A Pollatsek; S Bolozky; A D Well; K Rayner
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Reading without a fovea.

Authors:  K Rayner; J H Bertera
Journal:  Science       Date:  1979-10-26       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  9 in total

1.  Semantic inhibition of return is the exception rather than the rule.

Authors:  Ulrich W Weger; Albrecht W Inhoff
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2006-02

2.  The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR.

Authors:  Thomas M Spalek; Vincent Di Lollo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-04

Review 3.  A theory of eye movements during target acquisition.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Involuntary cueing effects during smooth pursuit: facilitation and inhibition of return in oculocentric coordinates.

Authors:  David Souto; Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-09-06       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Inhibition of return and object-based attentional selection.

Authors:  Alexandra List; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Shape effects on reflexive spatial selective attention and a plausible neurophysiological model.

Authors:  Saumil S Patel; Xinmiao Peng; Anne B Sereno
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 1.984

7.  Visual Benefits in Apparent Motion Displays: Automatically Driven Spatial and Temporal Anticipation Are Partially Dissociated.

Authors:  Merle-Marie Ahrens; Domenica Veniero; Joachim Gross; Monika Harvey; Gregor Thut
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A 5-min Cognitive Task With Deep Learning Accurately Detects Early Alzheimer's Disease.

Authors:  Ibrahim Almubark; Lin-Ching Chang; Kyle F Shattuck; Thanh Nguyen; Raymond Scott Turner; Xiong Jiang
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 5.750

9.  The timecourse of space- and object-based attentional prioritization with varying degrees of certainty.

Authors:  Leslie Drummond; Sarah Shomstein
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2013-12-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.