Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2008 | Original Article

Object-based selection in the Baylis and Driver (1993) paradigm is subject to space-based attentional modulation

Auteurs: Hermann J. Müller, Rebecca O’Grady, Joseph Krummenacher, Dieter Heller

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2008

Abstract

Three experiments re-examined Baylis and Driver’s (1993) strong evidence for object-based selection, that making relative apex location judgments is harder between two objects than within a single object, with object (figure-ground) segmentation determined solely by color-based perceptual set. Using variations of the Baylis and Driver paradigm, the experiments replicated a two-object cost. However, they also showed a large part of the two-object cost to be attributable to space-based factors, though there remained an irreducible cost consistent with ‘true’ object-based selection.

vorige artikel The effect of spatial frequency content on parameters of eye movements

volgende artikel The time course of presaccadic attention shifts

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Baylis and Driver’s (1993) demonstration of a between-object cost was subsequently challenged by Gibson (1994; see, Fig. 1b), who pointed out an imbalance in contour polarity in the stimuli of Baylis and Driver: full outline convexity for the central object, but only partial convexity for each of the flanking objects. Consequently, the respective descriptions would tend to be parsed differentially as figure and ground, respectively, accounting for the ‘between-object’ cost. Responding to this challenge, Baylis (1994) modified the stimuli to balance the amounts of convexity (and concavity) between within-object and between-object conditions (see the ‘chevron’-type stimuli in Fig. 1c, d, respectively). There remained a between-object cost even with these stimuli. Baylis concluded that both object convexity (Gibson, 1994) and number of objects separately influenced perceptual judgments of the locations of points within objects. Thus, the experiments of Baylis and Driver (1993) and Baylis (1994) appear to offer strong support for object-based selection.

In Conditions A, B, and C, for between-nonadjacent-object conditions, data from the isolated and isolated-close display conditions were combined in the analyses into the ‘isolated’ display condition, as the respective RTs were equivalent (i.e., identical in Conditions A and B) and there were no differences in error rates > 0.1%.

A full description of the data of Condition A is given in the Appendix. It is sufficient to note here that the pattern of effects in Condition A is in reasonable agreement with that reported by Baylis and Driver (1993). RTs were fastest for isolated displays, slowest for incongruent displays, and intermediate for joined and congruent displays; and, importantly, RTs were slower for between-object than for within-object displays. The between-object cost tended to be greater for congruent than for incongruent displays, though a differential speed-accuracy trade-off may have concealed a larger cost for incongruent displays.

Error rates tended to be higher in Condition A than in Conditions B and C: 4.4% vs. 2.3% and 2.2% [F(2,22) = 3.25, MS_e = 20.7, P < 0.075], and were higher for incongruent than for congruent and isolated displays: 4.1% vs. 2.6% and 3.0% [F(2,22) = 6.96, MS_e = 6.6, P < 0.005). Furthermore, while the error rates did not differ significantly between one-object and two-nonadjacent-object judgments (3.0 vs. 3.5%, averaged across Conditions A, B, and C), they were higher for two-nonadjacent-object than for two-adjacent-object judgments: 2.7 versus 1.4% [F(1,11) = 11.26, MS_e = 4.6, P < 0.01].

The error rates tended to be higher for between-object than for within-object judgments (3.3% vs. 2.1%; F(1,11) = 3.74, MS_e = 16.9, P > 0.075), and for incongruent than for congruent displays (2.9 vs. 2.4; F(1,11) = 3.72, MS_e = 2.9, P > 0.075).

The errors rates were higher in Conditions A and D than in Conditions B and C: 2.0% and 1.8 versus 1.0% and 1.0% [F(3,33) = 3.40, MS_e = 4.3, P < 0.03], and for between-object than for within-object judgments: 1.8 versus 1.1% [F(1,11) = 4.70, MS_e = 3.9, P = 0.053]. The between-object cost increased from Condition B to D (0.1, −0.2, 0.5, and 2.1% for Conditions A, B, C, and D) [F(3,33) = 4.42, MS_e = 2.9, P < 0.02].

Experiment 2 had shown that there is no difference between Experiment 1 Condition B (outline + apex) displays and Experiment 3 Condition B (filled + apex) displays. In Experiment 2, the differential between-object cost between Conditions A and B was larger than in Experiments 1 and 3, but observers were less practiced overall.

As was correctly pointed out by one of the reviewers, the allocation of spatial attention is supposed to be limited to a single locus in space and, consequently, attention is shifted between locations in a serial fashion. For alternative views based on the assumption of multiple foci of attention, the discussion of which would, however, go beyond the scope of the present study, see, e.g., Bundesen (1990), and Hahn and Kramer (1998) who present experimental evidence in support of multiple attenional foci.

See Schneider (1993) for proposals on how object- and space-based attention might be integrated functionally.

Bachmann, T. (1999). Twelve spatiotemporal phenomena and one explanation. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müssler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 174–206). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Baylis, G. C. (1994). Visual attention and objects: Between-object cost with equal convexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 208–212.CrossRef

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

Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.PubMedCrossRef

Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 501–517.CrossRef

Duncan, J. (1993). Similarity between concurrent visual discriminations: Dimensions and objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 425–430.PubMed

Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual atttention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.CrossRef

Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155–160.

Eriksen, C. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 299–305.PubMed

Gibson, B. (1994). Visual attention and objects: One versus two, or convex versus concave? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 203–207.PubMedCrossRef

Hahn, S., & Kramer, A. F. (1998). Further evidence for the division of attention among non-contiguous locations. Visual Cognition (Special issue: Mechanisms of Visual Attention: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective), 5, 217–256.

Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S., & Shimojo, S. (1993). Voluntary and stimulus-induced attention detected as motion sensation. Perception, 22, 517–526.

Hoffman, J. E., & Nelson, B. (1981). Spatial selectivity in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 283–290.

Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1977). Effects of visual grouping on immediate recall and selective attention. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 307–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.PubMedCrossRef

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

Kramer, A. F., Weber, T. A., & Watson, S. E. (1997). Object-based attentional selection - Grouped arrays or spatially invariant representations?: Comment on Vecera and Farah (1994). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 50, 267–284.

Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., & Heller, D. (2001). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 907–917.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.

Moore, C. M., Yantis, S., & Vaughan, B. (1998). Object-based visual perception: Evidence from perceptual completion. Psychological Science, 9, 104–110.CrossRef

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: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330.PubMedCrossRef

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

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, 1021–1035.PubMedCrossRef

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

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

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.CrossRef

Remington, R. W., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 393–399.PubMed

Schneider, W. X. (1993). Space-based visual attention models and object selection: Constraints, problems, and possible solutions. Psychological Research, 56, 35–43.PubMedCrossRef

Schneider, W. X. (1999). Visual-spatial working memory, attention, and scene representation: A neuro-cognitive theory. Psychological Research, 62, 220–236.PubMedCrossRef

Shulman, G. L., Remington, R. W., & McLean, J. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance, 5, 522–526.CrossRef

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

Treisman, A. M., Kahneman, D., & Burkell, J. (1983). Perceptual objects and the cost of filtering. Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 527–532.PubMed

Tsal, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.PubMedCrossRef

Vecera, S. P., & Farah, M. (1994). Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 146–160.CrossRef

Watt, R. (1988). Visual processing: computational, psychophysical and cognitive research. London: Erlbaum.

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

Yantis, S. (1988). On analog movements of visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 203–206.PubMed

Yantis, S., & Johnson, J. (1990). Mechanisms of attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 812–825.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Object-based selection in the Baylis and Driver (1993) paradigm is subject to space-based attentional modulation
Auteurs: Hermann J. Müller
Rebecca O’Grady
Joseph Krummenacher
Dieter Heller
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0172-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2008

Position effects in encoding briefly exposed item matrices: evidence for a reading bias or merely a matter of the selection criterion?

The surface and deep structure of the waterfall illusion

The role of global top-down factors in local eye-movement control in reading

The initial capitalization superiority effect in German: evidence for a perceptual frequency variant of the orthographic cue hypothesis of visual word recognition

Visual word recognition is accompanied by covert articulation: evidence for a speech-like phonological representation

Explorations in the language of perception and the perception of language