Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2009 | Original Article

Dimensional weighting of primary and secondary target-defining dimensions in visual search for singleton conjunction targets

Auteurs: Ralph Weidner, Hermann J. Müller

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2009

Abstract

Two experiments investigated dimension-based attentional processing in a complex singleton conjunction search task. In Experiment 1, observers had to discern the presence of a singleton target defined by a conjunction of size (fixed primary dimension) with either color or motion direction (secondary dimension). Similar to findings in singleton feature search, changes (vs. repetitions) of the secondary dimension across trials resulted in reaction time (RT) costs—which were, however, increased by a factor of 3–5 compared to singleton feature search. In Experiment 2, the coding of search-critical, dimensional saliency signals was investigated by additionally presenting targets redundantly defined in both secondary dimensions, with redundant-target signals being either spatially coincident or separate (i.e., one vs. two target items). Redundant-target RTs significantly violated Miller’s (Cognit Psychol 14:247–279, 1982) race model inequality only when redundant signals were spatially coincident (i.e., bound to a single object), indicating coactive processing of target information in the two secondary dimensions. These findings suggest that the coding and combining of signals from different visual dimensions operates in parallel. Increased change costs in singleton conjunction search are likely to reflect a reduced amount of weight available for processing the secondary target-defining dimensions, due to a large amount of weight being bound by the primary dimension.

vorige artikel Dimension- and space-based intertrial effects in visual pop-out search: modulation by task demands for focal-attentional processing

volgende artikel Misleading contextual cues: How do they affect visual search?

It is less immediately clear how FIT could be appropriately extended to accommodate dimension-specific intertrial effects. On possibility is to assume (feature) units that pool activity across target feature maps and thus represent the mere presence of a given target feature in the display, without pointing to its location (cf. Treisman & Gormican, 1988). Such units could then be checked serially in cross-dimensional feature search to ascertain whether a possible target feature is present in a given dimension. If the result is positive, a detection response can be given. If not, then checking switches to other possible features in other dimensions. Indeed, this is a proposal made by Treisman (1988). To explain the dimension-specificity (rather than feature-specificity) of the intertrial effects, this proposal would have to assume further that (1) the pooling units integrate feature activity across all possible target feature maps within a dimension, thereby providing some sort of dimension-specific target presence signal, and (2) that that dimensional pooling unit is checked first on a given trial that indicated the presence of a target on the last trial. However, even with this extension, FIT would still fail to explain why cross-dimensional integration of dimension-specific target signals is location-specific in nature (because the pooling units signal no information about target location).

This assumption is theoretically new: neither GS nor FIT state anything about filtering being necessarily resource demanding or binding weight.

According to the SOS model (Grossberg et al., 1994), a display is initially grouped on the basis of one dimension (e.g., size) and then, within the selected subset, on the basis of the second dimension (e.g., motion direction or color). Given that the settings associated with these operations persist across trials and that the selection processes require attentional weight shifts, hierarchical processing is able to account for increased costs on change trials. Attentional weight would have to be consecutively shifted to the primary target defining dimension to perform the initial selection operation and subsequently to one of the secondary target defining dimensions in order to check the presence of a higher saliency signal within this subset. The time consuming initial selection operation could account for the overall increase of detection RTs in conjunction relative to feature search. Higher dimensional switch costs would arise when a specific sequence of initial selection operations and saliency detection does not result in target detection. In this case, the sequence of operations (including the time consuming initial selection operation) would have to be carried out anew by selecting different subsets. However, this—essentially serial—model is inconsistent with the results of the present Experiment 2, which revealed both secondary target dimensions to influence search in parallel.

Allport, D. A. (1971). Parallel encoding within and between elementary stimulus dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 104–108.

Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1993). Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 451–470.PubMedCrossRef

Cave, K. R., & Wolfe, J. M. (1990). Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 225–271.PubMedCrossRef

Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 39–78.PubMedCrossRef

Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.CrossRef

Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., & Garbart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 32–39.CrossRef

Eriksen, C. W. (1988). A source of error in attempts to distinguish coactivation from separate activation in the perception of redundant targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 191–193.

Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding fromvisual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 155–160.

Found, A., & Müller, H. J. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88–101.

Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E., & Ross, W. D. (1994). A neural theory of attentive visual search: Interactions of boundary, surface, spatial, and object representations. Psycholological Review, 101, 470–489.CrossRef

Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10–12), 1489–1506.PubMedCrossRef

Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kaptein, N. A., Theeuwes, J., & van der Heijden, A. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(5), 1053–1069.

Koch, C., & Ullman, S. (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention: Towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4(4), 219–227.PubMed

Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., & Heller, D. (2001). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 901–917.

Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., & Heller, D. (2002). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Parallel-coactive processing of dimensions is location specific. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1303–1322.CrossRef

Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 75–82.CrossRef

McLeod, P., Driver, J., & Crisp, J. (1988). Visual search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel. Nature, 332, 154–155.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for co-activation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.PubMedCrossRef

Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(2), 315–330.PubMed

Müller, H. J., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1–17.

Müller, H. J., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus-and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 1021–1035.PubMedCrossRef

Nakayama, K., & Silverman, G. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264–265.PubMedCrossRef

Pollmann, S., Weidner, R., Müller, H. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). A fronto-posterior network involved in visual dimension changes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 480–494.PubMedCrossRef

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.PubMedCrossRef

Ramnani, N., & Owen, A. M. (2004). Anterior prefrontal cortex: Insights into function from anatomy and neuroimaging. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(3), 184–194.PubMedCrossRef

Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40(2), 201–237.

Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRef

Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95(1), 15–48.PubMedCrossRef

Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 459–478.PubMedCrossRef

Wei, P., Lü, J., Müller, H. J., & Zhou, X. (2008). Searching for two feature singletons in the visual scene: The localized attentional interference effect. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 175–188.CrossRef

Weidner, R., Pollmann, S., Müller, H. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Top-down controlled visual dimension weighting: An event-related fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 318–328.PubMedCrossRef

Wolfe, J. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–74). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.

Titel: Dimensional weighting of primary and secondary target-defining dimensions in visual search for singleton conjunction targets
Auteurs: Ralph Weidner
Hermann J. Müller
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0208-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2009

Dynamics of attentional control

Attention, competition, and the parietal lobes: insights from Balint’s syndrome

Top-down influences on attentional capture by color changes

Attentional and anatomical considerations for the representation of simple stimuli in visual short-term memory: evidence from human electrophysiology

Distinct, but top-down modulable color and positional priming mechanisms in visual pop-out search

Misleading contextual cues: How do they affect visual search?