Effects of display complexity on location and feature inhibition

Inhibition of return refers to the lengthening of reaction times (RTs) to a target when a preceding stimulus has occupied the same location in space. Recently, we observed a robust inhibitory effect for color and shape in moderately complex displays: It is more difficult to detect a target with a particular nonspatial attribute if a stimulus with the same attribute was recently the focus of attention. Such nonspatial inhibitory effects have not generally been found in simpler displays. In the present study, we test how location-based and nonspatial inhibitory effects vary as a function of display complexity (eight, six, four, and two locations). The results demonstrated that (1) location-based inhibition effects were much stronger in more complex displays, whereas the nonspatial inhibition was only slightly stronger in more complex displays; (2) nonspatial inhibitory effects emerged at longer stimulus onset asynchronies than did location-based effects; and (3) nonspatial inhibition appeared only when cues and targets occurred in the same locations, confirming that pure feature repetition does not produce a cost. Taken together, the results are consistent with perceptual processes based on object files that are organized by spatial location. Using somewhat more complex displays than are most commonly employed provides a more sensitive method for observing the role of inhibitory processes in facilitating visual search. In addition, using a relatively wide set of cue-target timing relationships is necessary in order to clearly see how inhibitory effects operate.

Facilitation versus inhibition in non-spatial attribute discrimination tasks

Inhibition of Return is a delay in initiating attentional shifts to previously inspected locations. It has been explained as a mechanism to facilitate visual search of a scene by inhibiting the allocation of attention to locations that have already been examined. We (Hu, Samuel, & Chan, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2010) recently demonstrated that similar processing costs can appear when a non-spatial attribute (color or shape) repeats-detection of a target stimulus was slower if the target shared color or shape with a recently presented cue. In the current study, we test whether such inhibitory effects occur for non-spatial attribute repetition when observers must make a discrimination judgment about targets. We found two independent effects: First, there was a standard location-based IOR effect-target discrimination was slower when the target appeared in the same location as a preceding cue. Second, reaction times were faster if the target's color or shape matched the cue's color or shape; this facilitation effect contrasts with both the location-based inhibition that was present in the current experiments, and with the inhibitory effect of feature repetition in our previous detection task study. The data are best accounted for by a three-factor model recently suggested by Lupiáñez (Attention and time, 2010).

Attentional capture by object appearance and disappearance

In two experiments we examined whether the appearance of a new object has attentional priority over disappearance. Previous failures to show differences are possibly due to onsets and offsets always being presented as a sole visual transient. Rather than presenting each alone, we presented onset and offset singletons simultaneously with a display-wide luminance transient in order to force each to compete with other visual events. Results from Experiment 1 showed that targets associated with onsets accrued a reaction time benefit whilst targets associated with offsets did not. Experiment 2 showed that onsets attracted attention even when observers were attentionally set to look for offset. By contrast, offsets needed a relevant attentional set in order to attract attention. We argue that the appearance of an object has attentional priority over disappearance.

Antisaccade costs with static and dynamic targets

In the present study we examined the antisaccade cost (latency difference between antisaccades and prosaccades) in a variety of search tasks. In a series of experiments participants searched for a target and were required to execute a saccade toward (prosaccade) or aw ay (antisaccade) from the target. The results revealed that the antisaccade cost was greater for static targets than for dynamic targets, and it was greater for onset targets than for offset targets. Furthermore, the offset of an onset target interfered with prosaccades, but facilitated antisaccades, resulting in a reduction of the antisaccade cost. To account for the data a model is presented, in which attentional control and working memory processes play an important role in the generation of antisaccades.

Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture

Whether or not the capture of visual attention is driven solely by the salience of an attention-capturing stimulus or mediated by top-down control has been a point of contention since Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992) introduced their contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, which states that the capture of attention by a salient stimulus depends on its relevance to a feature distinguishing the target from nontargets. Gibson and Kelsey (1998) extended Folk et al.'s (1992) hypothesis by demonstrating that features associated with the appearance of the target display also mediate capture. Although similar to Folk et al. (1992), Gibson and Kelsey's displaywide contingent orienting hypothesis makes it difficult to demonstrate stimulus-driven capture, because an observer must always use some perceptible feature as a signal of the target display's appearance; hence, such features could always be mediating capture. The present article reviews and applies the logic of Gibson and Kelsey's and Folk et al.'s (1992) hypotheses to experiments from the attentional capture literature, and assesses whether previously reported capture effects were mediated by top-down attentional control. It concludes that these capture effects were not stimulus-driven.

Just like new: Newly segregated old objects capture attention

Subjects searched for target letters that were either contained in or segregated from a group of distracting letters and were either moving or stationary. Subjects were faster to identify targets that had recently become segregated from the group regardless of whether the segregation was accomplished by (1) the element itself moving away from the group or (2) the group moving away from the segregated element. The results show that attention can be captured by newly apparent objects that are produced by a new grouping of an existing scene.

Oculomotor consequences of abrupt object onsets and offsets: onsets dominate oculomotor capture

Previous research has shown that the appearance of an object (onset) and the disappearance of an object (offset) have the ability to influence the allocation of covert attention. To determine whether both onsets and offsets have the ability to influence eye movements, a series of experiments was conducted in which participants had to make goal-directed eye movements to a color singleton target in the presence of an irrelevant onset/offset. In accord with previous research, onsets had the ability to capture the eyes. The offset of an object demonstrated little or no ability to interrupt goal-directed eye movements to the target. Two experiments in which the effects of onsets and offsets on covert attention were examined suggest that offsets do not capture the eyes, because they have a lesser ability to capture covert attention than do onsets. A number of other studies that have shown strong effects of offsets on attention have used offsets that were uncorrelated with target position (i.e., nonpredictive), whereas we used onsets and offsets that never served as targets (i.e., antipredictive). The present results are consistent with a new-object theory of attentional capture in which onsets receive attentional priority over other types of changes in the visual environment.

Inhibition of return: Sensitivity and criterion as a function of response time

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a mechanism that results in a performance disadvantage typically observed when targets are presented at a location once occupied by a cue. Although the time course of the phenomenon--from the cue to the target--has been well studied, the time course of the effect--from target to response--is unknown. In 2 experiments, the effect of IOR upon sensitivity and response criterion under different levels of speed stress was examined. In go/no-go and choice reaction time tasks, IOR had at least 2 distinct effects on information processing. Early in target processing, before sufficient target information has accrued, there is a bias against responding to cued targets. Later, as target information is allowed to accrue, IOR reduces sensitivity to the target's nonspatial feature. Three accounts relating to the early bias effect of IOR and the late effect of IOR on sensitivity are offered.

The role of temporal and spatial factors in the covert orienting of visual attention tasks

There is a biphasic pattern in response times to peripheral uninformative cues, with faster responses to targets in cued locations when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is under 300 ms and slower responses when it is over 300 ms. The effect has typically been attributed entirely to the SOA while ignoring other aspects of the cues (duration, spatial configuration). To examine these other factors, along with SOA, the present experiments included manipulations of SOA (50, 100, 200, 400, 800 ms), inter-stimulus interval (ISI; 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 350, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 750 ms), and whether or not the cue and target overlap in the same space. The results indicate that cueing effects depend on the combination of cue duration, ISI, SOA, and the spatial configuration of the cues and targets. Three factors are used to explain these time course results.

Inhibition of return: A graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties

Immediately after a stimulus appears in the visual field, there is often a short period of facilitated processing of stimuli at or near this location. This period is followed by one in which processing is impaired, rather than facilitated. This impairment has been termed inhibition of return (IOR). In the present study, the time course of this phenomenon was examined in two ways. (1) A graphical meta-analysis plotted the size of the effect as a function of the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of the two stimuli. This analysis showed that IOR is impressively stable for SOAs of 300-1,600 msec. It also showed that the literature does not provide any clear sense of the duration of IOR. (2) An empirical approach was, therefore, taken to fill this gap in our knowledge of IOR. In three experiments, IOR was tested using SOAs between 600 and 4,200 msec. IOR was robust for approximately 3 sec and appeared to taper off after this point; the observed duration varied somewhat as a function of the testing conditions. In addition, for the first second, the degree of inhibition was inversely related to distance of the target from the original stimulus, but for the next 2 sec this spatial distribution was not observed. Theories of the mechanisms and function of IOR must conform to these spatial and temporal properties.

Abrupt onsets and gaze direction cues trigger independent reflexive attentional effects

The present study investigated whether the direction of visual signals is influenced independently by two automatic visual orienting phenomena: orienting to a gazed-at location and inhibition of return (IOR) to the location of an abrupt onset. A schematic face served as both a nonpredictive gaze direction cue and an abrupt onset cue. Results indicated that target detection was facilitated at the gazed-at location, and that it was inhibited at the abrupt onset location. Importantly, these two different reflexive attention effects were triggered by the same event and exhibited overlapping time courses. Moreover, the IOR effect did not vary as a function of the facilitatory effect of gaze. These findings strongly suggest that reflexive attention to gaze direction and reflexive inhibition to an abrupt onset are independent processes, and that gaze direction does not produce IOR at the gazed-at location.

The neural structures expressing perceptual hysteresis in visual letter recognition

Perception can change nonlinearly with stimulus contrast, and perceptual threshold may depend on the direction of contrast change. Such hysteresis effects in neurometric functions provide a signature of perceptual awareness. We recorded brain activity with functional neuroimaging in observers exposed to gradual contrast changes of initially hidden visual stimuli. Lateral occipital, frontal, and parietal regions all displayed both transient activations and hysteresis that correlated with change and maintenance of a percept, respectively. Medial temporal activity did not follow perception but increased during hysteresis and showed transient deactivations during perceptual transitions. These findings identify a set of brain regions sensitive to visual awareness and suggest that medial temporal structures may provide backward signals that account for neural and, thereby, perceptual hysteresis.

Temporal dynamics of reflexive attention shifts: a dual-stream rapid serial visual presentation exploration

We combined a prototypical exogenous cuing procedure with rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) to provide a precise characterization of the temporal dynamics of reflexive attention shifts. The novel paradigm thus created has several useful properties, most notably that the physical presentation of the target is neither an onset nor a unique event and that temporal precision is provided without the requirement for a speeded response. A biphasic pattern was observed, with early benefits followed by later costs (inhibition of return) at the cued location relative to the uncued location. The finding of inhibition of return in this paradigm disproves the assertion that inhibition of return is merely a reluctance to respond in the target's direction. It may be partly that, but encoding mechanisms linked to attention must also be involved.