Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Attention Presentation

4,635 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Attention Presentation

  1. 1. VISUALATTENTION: Control, Representation, and Time Course Howard E. Egeth and Steven Yantis Department of Psychology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
  2. 2. 1. Attentional control Top-down control (goal-directed) Bottom-up control (stimulus-driven) 2. Representational basis for visual selection. 3. Time course of attention.
  3. 3. <ul><li>Deployment of attention </li></ul><ul><li>sometimes -> </li></ul><ul><li>exclusively depends on the properties of the image. </li></ul><ul><li>other times -> </li></ul><ul><li>under strict supervision according to the observer’s goals. </li></ul><ul><li>in a few exceptions -> </li></ul><ul><li>both 2 determine the attentional consequences. </li></ul><ul><li>These 2 domains of attentional control invariably interact. </li></ul>STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  4. 4. <ul><li>Deployment of attention </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution of attention can be controlled by the intentions of the observer. </li></ul><ul><li>Two major categories of stimulus properties that could in principle capture attention can be distinguished : </li></ul><ul><li>Feature Singletons </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Abrupt Visual Onsets </li></ul>STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  5. 5. <ul><li>Feature Singletons </li></ul><ul><li>1. Stimuli that differ substantially in one or more simple visual attribute(e.g. color, orientation, motion) from their backgrounds. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Feature singletons are judged as subjectively salient. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Such stimuli can be found efficiently in visual search. </li></ul><ul><li>If feature singletons capture attention? </li></ul><ul><li>In cited cases, the stimulus in question was itself the target of search, and therefore presumably elicited top-down control. </li></ul><ul><li>One have to explicitly dissociate the observer’s attentional set from the properties of the stimulus array. </li></ul>STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture
  6. 6. <ul><li>Feature Singletons </li></ul><ul><li>1. Stimuli that differ substantially in one or more simple visual attribute(e.g. color, orientation, motion) from their backgrounds. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Feature singletons are judged as subjectively salient. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Such stimuli can be found efficiently in visual search. </li></ul>STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture
  7. 7. <ul><li>Singletons Capture Attention </li></ul>Reaction time OO / OO //// O < O O / O O / // / O < Reaction time < Theeuwes (1992) Pashler (1988) Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  8. 8. <ul><li>Singletons capture attention </li></ul>STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION cue array target array L T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T Joseph & Optican (1996) Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture Attention was drawn to the cue even though it was known to be irrelevant to the task.
  9. 9. <ul><li>Singletons Do Not Capture Attention </li></ul>H R S O X Z E I V P B J A G W Q L U Y M K T N C F G R E O Z B T H C I S D Y J P Q L U N M K A W F V P R O C T Z Q N V Y E K A J F X L I W G B H U M P M C Y J R O G T W C V A Y E K N P X M Z U Q F B H I P L K Jonides & Yantis (1988) Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture Reaction time to find the target did not differ whether the target was the unique element or not. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  10. 10. <ul><li>Singletons Do Not Capture Attention </li></ul>Hillstrom & Yantis (1994) Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T L T T T T T T T T Moving element Target element T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T L T T T T T T T T Target element and also the Moving element STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION Reaction time of the moving targets did not differ from the stationary ones.
  11. 11. <ul><li>Attentional Control …… a possible reconciliation </li></ul><ul><li>Singleton Detection Mode </li></ul><ul><li>The location of the largest or the greater contrast can be accessed, but not the identity of the dimension(s) on which the stimuli differ. </li></ul><ul><li>When searching for a shape singleton, an irrelevant color singleton may win out. </li></ul><ul><li>Feature Search Mode </li></ul><ul><li>Attention is directed to locations that match some task-defined visual feature (e.g. “red” or “vertical”). </li></ul>Feature Singletons & Attentional Capture Bacon & Egeth (1994) STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  12. 12. <ul><li>Peripheral cue draws attention automatically, </li></ul><ul><li>whereas a central arrowhead cue requires a deliberate shift of attention. </li></ul><ul><li>Peripheral cues drew attention whether they were informative about the location of the target or not, while central cues only controlled the deployment of attention when they were informative. </li></ul>Abrupt Visual Onsets & Attentional Capture Jonides (1981) STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION
  13. 13. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Peripheral cues might capture attention because they have abrupt onset. </li></ul>Yantis & Jonides (1984) Abrupt Visual Onsets & Attentional Capture A visual search task searching for a prespecified target letter embedded in an array of nontarget letters.
  14. 15. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION Yantis & Jonides (1984) Abrupt Visual Onsets & Attentional Capture The target happened to be the onset letter The target was one of the no-onset letters < Reaction time
  15. 16. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Two potential mechanisms could account for attentional capture by abrupt onset. </li></ul><ul><li>1. Luminance increment activates Visual pathways, and it also direct attention to the eliciting object. </li></ul><ul><li>2. The appearance of a perceptual object. This might be a hard-wired response to the need to rapidly identify new objects entering the visual field. </li></ul>Abrupt Visual Onsets & Attentional Capture Yantis & Hillstrom (1994)
  16. 21. EXP3
  17. 22. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Yantis & Hillstrom used stimuli that were equiluminant with their background. These displays thus exhibited no change in mean luminance, but they did include the appearance of a new perceptual object. </li></ul><ul><li>Attention was captured by new perceptual objects even though they didn’t exhibit a luminance increment. </li></ul>Abrupt Visual Onsets & Attentional Capture Yantis & Hillstrom (1994)
  18. 23. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Irrelevant feature singletons capture attention only when subjects enter singleton detection mode. </li></ul><ul><li>Attentional capture by abrupt onset can be modulated by focused attention elsewhere in the display. </li></ul>Interaction of Goal-Driven & Stimulus-Driven Capture
  19. 24. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Any given perceptual act entail an attentional control setting. </li></ul><ul><li>The attentional control setting is part of the explicit or implicit set of perceptual goals held by the observer at the specific moment. </li></ul><ul><li>The visual features that are of current interest(e.g. “red” or “vertical”) will control the distribution of attention. </li></ul>Interaction of Goal-Driven & Stimulus-Driven Capture Folk.Remington.Johnston(1992)
  20. 25. EXP1 TABLE
  21. 26. EXP2 TABLE
  22. 28. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>The deployment of attention depends critically on what the subject is set for. </li></ul><ul><li>When the cue and target were of the same type, i.e. both color or both onset, cue validity had a large effect. </li></ul><ul><li>Whereas the cue and target were of different types, then the cue had little or no influence on response time. </li></ul><ul><li>The state of attentional readiness adopted by the observer determines what sort of feature singletons will capture attention. </li></ul>Interaction of Goal-Driven & Stimulus-Driven Capture Folk.Remington.Johnston(1992)
  23. 29. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>Wolfe’s Guided search model </li></ul><ul><li>Attention is directed to objects serially in order of priority. </li></ul><ul><li>Top-down activation </li></ul><ul><li>How closely an object matches the current attentional set. </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom-up activation </li></ul><ul><li>How much a given object differs from neighboring objects within any given perceptual dimension. </li></ul><ul><li>Attention map </li></ul><ul><li>Determines the order in which objects are visited during visual search. </li></ul>Interaction of Goal-Driven & Stimulus-Driven Capture Wolfe (1994)
  24. 30. STIMULUS-DRIVEN & GOAL-DIRECTED CONTROL OF ATTENTION <ul><li>The deployment of attention depends jointly on properties of the image and the goals and expectation of the observer. </li></ul>Interaction of Goal-Driven & Stimulus-Driven Capture William James
  25. 31. exp1
  26. 32. exp2
  27. 33. THE REPRESENTATIONAL BASIS OF VISUAL SELECTION “ If attention selects a stimulus, what is the stimulus that it selects?”
  28. 34. Viewpoint 1 <ul><li>Hoffman & Nelson (1981): identify a target and then identify a secondary shape </li></ul><ul><li>Downing & Pinker (1985): cued box & target event </li></ul>
  29. 35. Viewpoint 2 <ul><li>Kahneman & Henik (1981): attention might be directed not only to spatial locations but also to perceptual objects. </li></ul><ul><li>the Gestalt psychologists </li></ul>
  30. 36. Overlap and Grouping <ul><li>Rock & Guttman (1981): </li></ul><ul><li>1.The judgment task of the object drawn </li></ul><ul><li>2. A surprise recognition test </li></ul>
  31. 37. Overlap and Grouping <ul><li>Duncan (1984): a display consisting of a rectangle with a tilted line drawn through the middle. </li></ul>
  32. 38. Overlap and Grouping <ul><li>when attention is directed to one part of an object, other parts of the object enjoy an attentional benefit, whereas equally distant locations in other objects do not. </li></ul><ul><li>Egly et al (1994) </li></ul>
  33. 39. Overlap and Grouping <ul><li>Eriksen & Eriksen (1974):the noise letters were assigned to a response that conflicted with the response associated with the target letter, responses were significantly slowed </li></ul><ul><li>Baylis & Driver (1992) </li></ul><ul><li>X H S H X H X S X H </li></ul>
  34. 40. Motion <ul><li>Kahneman et al (1992) </li></ul><ul><li>An object file: a temporary episodic representation of a visual object, containing a record of its location, its various attributes, and its recent history </li></ul>
  35. 41. Motion <ul><li>The target follows the onset of the cue by 150 ms or less(speed) ; or more than 300 ms(slow), inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm(Posner et al,1985) </li></ul><ul><li>Tipper et al (1991) </li></ul>
  36. 42. Motion <ul><li>Gibson & Egeth(1994) argued that the conception of an object as independent of location should not be understood to imply that an object is devoid of location. </li></ul><ul><li>Although objects are distinct from the spatial locations that they occupy, there exist other intraobject locations that may be fixed with respect to the overall object </li></ul>
  37. 43. The Time Course Of Attention
  38. 44. <ul><li>- Directing Attention </li></ul><ul><li>how quickly attention can be directed at a particular stimulus </li></ul><ul><li>Dwell Time of Attention </li></ul><ul><li>how long attention remains at a particular stimulus </li></ul><ul><li>Visual Search </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) </li></ul><ul><li>- whole report, partial report, minimal sequence </li></ul><ul><li>Movement of Attention </li></ul><ul><li>how attention moves from location to location </li></ul>Time Course of Attention
  39. 45. Directing Attention <ul><li>Muller & Rabbitt (1989) </li></ul>
  40. 46. Directing Attention Peripheral cue: fast, transient response Central cue: slow, sustained response = deliberate shift of attention
  41. 47. Dwell Time of Attention (Visual Search) <ul><li>Estimate amount of time spent per item in the visual display </li></ul><ul><li>Wolfe et al (1989) </li></ul>
  42. 48. Dwell Time of Attention (Visual Search)
  43. 49. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-whole) <ul><li>Sequential display of stimuli </li></ul><ul><li>Saarinen & Julesz (1991) </li></ul>SOAs: 33, 67, or 100 ms
  44. 50. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-whole)
  45. 51. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-whole) <ul><li>Different approach: how slowly stimuli needed to be presented to keep report accuracy at a high level </li></ul><ul><li>Kolers & Katzman (1966) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 letters sequentially, same spatial location </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SOA of 375 ms for over 90% accuracy </li></ul></ul>
  46. 52. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-whole) <ul><li>Haber & Nathanson (1969) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Words that varied from 4 to 8 letters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Critical SOA for 4 letter word= 65 ms, for 8 letter word = 110 ms </li></ul></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>problems </li></ul>
  47. 53. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-partial) <ul><li>Problems w/ whole report </li></ul><ul><li>Use of words: guessing strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Random letter strings: memory requirement > task performance </li></ul><ul><li>RSVP- partial report: report 1 or 2 “target items” in the stream </li></ul><ul><li>Broadbent & Broadbent (1987) </li></ul>
  48. 54. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-partial) <ul><li>Broadbent & Broadbent (1987) </li></ul>
  49. 55. Dwell Time of Attention (RSVP-partial) <ul><li>consistent w/ Duncan (1980) </li></ul>
  50. 56. Rapid serial visual presentation partial report <ul><li>Weichselgartner and Sperling(1987) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Memory mechanisms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attentional processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceptual processes </li></ul></ul>
  51. 57. Rapid serial visual presentation partial report <ul><li>Raymond et al.(1992) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A suppression of visual processing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perceptual and attentional mechanisms blink </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A dual-task RSVP experiment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The consequences associated with paying attention to a target </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Posttarget performance deficits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sensory factors </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>% correct detections of the probe </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>As a function of the probe position of in the series </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attentional blink </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  52. 58. <ul><li>RSVP with a multi-item sequence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A daunting task </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Duncan et al.(1994) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stimuli were close together in time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The first stimulus interfered with the second </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dwell time of attention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>An index of the time course of the first object’s attentional demand </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>500ms </li></ul></ul></ul>Rapid serial visual presentation minimal sequences-1
  53. 59. Why the discrepant results -1 <ul><li>Moore et al(1996) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dwell time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Depending on specific stimuli and tasks? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Duncan et al(1994) and Ward et al(1995) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Masked stimuli </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A difficult discrimination > an easy discrimination </li></ul></ul></ul>
  54. 60. Why the discrepant results -1 <ul><li>Moore et al(1996) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Masking status  affecting the dwell time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dwell time in easy method </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>↓ 200ms </li></ul></ul></ul>
  55. 61. Why the discrepant results -2 <ul><li>Bennett and Wolfe(1996) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual search  RSVP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fell only at 26 ms </li></ul></ul>
  56. 62. The movement of attention <ul><li>Attention shifting from one location to another in the visual field </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An analog and continuous fashion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An abrupt relocation </li></ul></ul>
  57. 63. An analog and continuous fashion -1 <ul><li>Shul-et al ( 1979 ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Like a spotlight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tsal ( 1983 ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attention takes time to move </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>↑ distance -> ↑time to move </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cue should be beneficial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maximum benefit of the cue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Further away from fixation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  58. 64. An analog and continuous fashion -2 <ul><li>Eriksen & Murphy (1987) and Yantis (1988) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not including a control for general arousal or alertness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attention shifting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Continuous or discrete dynamics? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  59. 65. An abrupt relocation- 1 <ul><li>Sagi and Julesz (1985) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discrimination accuracy was independent of distance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Kwak et al.(1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Remington and Piere(1984) </li></ul>
  60. 66. An abrupt relocation- 2 <ul><li>Sagi & Julesz (1985) and Kwak et al.(1991) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tasks was accomplished preattentively </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Being little reason to speak of reallocation of attention </li></ul></ul></ul>
  61. 67. An abrupt relocation- 3 <ul><li>A serial processing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additive </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A parallel processing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subadditive </li></ul></ul>
  62. 68. An abrupt relocation- 4 <ul><li>Sperling and Weichselgartner(1995) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>↑ distance -> ↑time to move </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attention can skip over an intervening obstacle without any time cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantum </li></ul></ul>×
  63. 70. Hoffman & Nelson (1981) L L Conclusion: identification accuracy was much better when the two stimuli were adjacent to each other
  64. 71. Downing & Pinker (1985) Cued Box Luminance increment (target event) Conclusion: RT was fastest when the target event occurred within the cued box
  65. 72. The Gestalt Laws <ul><li>Nearness </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity </li></ul><ul><li>Good continuation </li></ul>
  66. 73. Rock & Guttman (1981) Cover task Conclusion: attended items are more than unattended or new items; unattended and new items did not differ .
  67. 74. Duncan (1984) Conclusion: more accurate when the attributes belonged to the same object .
  68. 75. Egly et al (1994) Conclusion: RTs in the same-object condition were faster than in the different-object condition.
  69. 76. Kahneman et al (1992) S P 500ms 1s ? 590ms Conclusion: naming latencies were much slower for no-match trials than for the other conditions; RTs were significantly faster for the same object condition than for the different object condition . S V S
  70. 77. Tipper et al (1991) 180° target Conclusion: RT was slower when the target appeared within the previously cued object, which suggested that IOR is object-based under these conditions . Cued box Cued box

×