Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Crosstalk between on-line and off-line processing of visual features

  • 72 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

Three dual-task experiments were conducted to investigate the relation between immediate, “on-line” judgments about visual features and delayed, “off-line” judgments. One hypothesis (“selective interference”) predicted that dual-task performance would be challenged specifically within a visual dimension, as both tasks compete for the same resources. Another hypothesis (“cost of switching”) made the opposite prediction. In Experiment 1, participants performed either color or shape discriminations in the on-line and off-line visual tasks, with systematic variation of feature similarity between the on-line and off-line features. In Experiment 2, participants performed either color or shape discriminations in the off-line task and color discriminations in the on-line task, with no overlap between the on-line and off-line features. In Experiment 3, participants performed color discriminations in both the on-line and off-line tasks, with partially overlapping stimulus sets. Altogether, the data from the three experiments provided evidence in favor of the hypothesis of cost of switching. Stimulus–stimulus compatibility effects between features in the off-line task and those in the on-line task further underscored the perceptual nature of the crosstalk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Avidan, G., Levy, I., Hendler, T., Malach, E., & Zohary, R. (2003). Spatial versus object specific attention in high-order visual areas. Neuroimage, 19, 308–318.

  2. Awh, E., & Jonides, J. (2001). Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 119–126.

  3. Awh, E., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 780–790.

  4. Barnes, L. L., Nelson, J. K., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2001). Object-based attention and object working memory: Overlapping processes revealed by selective interference effects in humans. Progress in Brain Research, 134, 471–481.

  5. 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.

  6. Bisley, J. W., & Goldberg, M. E. (2003). Neuronal activity in the lateral intraparietal area and spatial attention. Science, 299, 81–86.

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

  8. Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991a). Attentional modulation of neural processing of shape, color and velocity in humans. Science, 248, 1556–1559.

  9. Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991b). Selective and divided attention during visual discrimination of shape, color and speed: Functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. The Journal of Neuroscience, 11, 2383–2402.

  10. Downing, P. E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and attention. Psychological Science, 11, 467–473.

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

  12. Farah, M. J. (1985). Psychophysical evidence for shared representational medium for mental images and percepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 91–103.

  13. Farah, M. J., Hammond, K. M., Levine, D. N., & Calvanio, R. (1988). Visual and spatial mental imagery: Dissociable systems of representation. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 439–462.

  14. Fias, W., Dupont, P., Reynvoet, B., & Orban, G. A. (2002). The quantitative nature of a visual task differentiates between ventral and dorsal stream. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 646–658.

  15. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and a taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

  16. Lauwereyns, J. (1998). Exogenous/endogenous control of space-based/object-based attention: Four types of visual selection? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 41–74.

  17. Lauwereyns, J., Sakagami, M., Tsutsui, K., Kobayashi, S., Koizumi, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2001). Responses to task-irrelevant visual features by primate prefrontal neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 2001–2010.

  18. Lauwereyns, J., Takikawa, Y., Kawagoe, R., Kobayashi, S., Koizumi, M., Coe, B., Sakagami, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2002). Feature-based anticipation of cues that predict reward in monkey caudate nucleus. Neuron, 33, 463–473.

  19. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

  20. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. New York: Oxford University Press.

  21. Pashler, H. (1994). Graded capacity sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 330–342.

  22. Shulman, G. L., d’Avossa, G., Tansy, A. P., & Corbetta, M. (2002). Two attentional processes in the parietal lobe. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 1124–1131.

  23. Supèr, H., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2001). A neural correlate of working memory in the monkey primary visual cortex. Science, 293, 120–124.

  24. Theeuwes, J. (1994). Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection. Perception, 23, 429–440.

  25. Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.) Analysis of visual behavior (pp 549–586). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  26. Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992). Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  27. Zimmer, H. D., Speiser, H. R., & Seidler, B. (2003). Spatio-temporal working memory and short-term object-location tasks use different memory mechanisms. Acta Psychologica, 114, 41–65.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Chris Olivers and an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on a previous draft of this article, and Todd Jones, Carolyn Wilshire and Shunsuke Kobayashi for valuable discussions relating to this research. This research was supported by VUW grant 21335.

Author information

Correspondence to Johan Lauwereyns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lauwereyns, J., Wisnewski, R., Keown, K. et al. Crosstalk between on-line and off-line processing of visual features. Psychological Research 70, 170–179 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0200-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Compatibility Effect
  • Dual Task
  • Visual Dimension
  • Neutral Trial
  • Response Time Analysis