Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Object-based selection operating on a spatial representation made salient by dimensional segmentation mechanisms: a re-investigation of Egly and Homa (1984)

  • 85 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

Three experiments re-investigated selective attention in the ‘ring-cueing’ paradigm of Egly and Homa (J Exp Psychol: Human Percept Perform 10:778–793, 1984). Observers were cued to attend to one of three concentric rings of radius 1°, 2°, or 3°, and their signal detection accuracy for cued and uncued rings was measured. Experiment 1, which used a central color cue to indicate a like-colored ring, replicated ring-cueing effects along the lines of Egly and Homa. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether these effects were produced by observers exploiting secondary-depth cues possibly inherent in the display layout. With color cues, the availability of secondary-depth information had no influence on the ring-cueing effects. However, making the rings monochrome and using central size cues significantly reduced the ring-cueing effects when the depth information was disrupted. The results suggest that selection was object-based, operating on a spatial ‘grouped-array’ representation of the cued ring made salient by color- or depth-based segmentation mechanisms.

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

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    To illustrate the importance of the independent decisions, suppose that a target on an uncued object captures attention, but that the observer has to make a target/no-target decision concerning the cued object. When displays contain at most one target (i.e., without an independent-decisions design), an observer probably could infer from the detection of a target on an uncued object (attention capture; e.g., Yantis, 1993) that the cued object did not contain a target and, consequently, give a negative response. Such inferred judgements would confound the estimates of perceptual sensitivity.

  2. 2.

    Previous studies that used this technique (e.g., Downing, 1988; Müller & Humphreys, 1991) required observers to make multiple decisions (to multiple locations) on a given trial, with the possibility of loss of information from visual short-term memory (VSTM) during the time between target display presentation and sequential yes/no responses (to potential target locations).

  3. 3.

    The measurement reliability was least for the neutral trials. There are two reasons for this: First, the neutral-trial sensitivity estimates were based on a much smaller number of responses than the valid and invalid-trial sensitivity estimates. For example, in Experiment 1 for each ring, there were only 24 neutral-trial probes per session (12 positive and 12 negative), compared to 120 valid-trial probes (96/24) and 120 invalid-trial probes (60/60). Second, neutral-cue trials were much rarer than informative-cue trials (16.67 vs. 83.33%), so that observers may not have consistently adopted a ‘neutral’ spatial-attentional set (dividing attention equally across the three rings). Rather, they might have tended to set themselves for a preferred ring/object (e.g., inner ring).

  4. 4.

    Overall accuracy for valid, neutral, and invalid trials was 763, 0.753, and 0.662 in Experiment 1 (1); 0.777, 0.747, and 0.717 and, respectively, 807, 0.765, and 0.720 in the secondary-depth (2) and depth-disrupted conditions (3) of Experiment 2; and 0.807, 0.748, and 0.721 and, respectively, 0.778, 0.775, and 0.746 in the secondary-depth (4) and depth-disrupted conditions (5) of Experiment 3. Thus, in experimental conditions 2, 3 and 4 the accuracy benefits and costs with respect to neutral-trial accuracy were reasonably symmetrical; in the other two conditions, 1 and 5, the accuracy costs were larger than the benefits.

  5. 5.

    An alternative assumption would be that selection is three dimensional in the sense of true 3D object or, at least, surface selection. This is not ruled out by the present experiments, in which the rings could only be viewed as 2D objects falling in different depth planes. To test the alternative hypothesis, one would have to use displays of objects that undulate in and out of their depth planes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears more parsimonious to assume that selection is based on a two-dimensional representation.

  6. 6.

    Further evidence for a grouped-array representation mediating object selection has been provided by O’Grady and Müller (2000) who found that object cueing enhanced the detection of targets that appeared on the cued object’s outline shape (i.e., at location markers that were part of the grouped array), but not the detection of targets that appeared within the spatial region delineated by the cued object.

  7. 7.

    The present findings would appear to be inconsistent with Nakayama and Silverman’s (1986b) proposal that (stereoscopic) depth, and 2D spatial locus, hold priority over other stimulus dimensions in visual search and selection. However, it has to be borne in mind that the present experiments manipulated secondary, rather than stereoscopic, depth cues.

References

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

  2. Allport, A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.), Cognitive psychology: New directions (pp. 112–153). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  3. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1993). Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 451–470.

  4. Chau, A. W., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (1995). Segregation by color and stereoscopic depth in three-dimensional visual space. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1032–1044.

  5. Cheal, M., Lyon, D. R., & Gottlob, L. R. (1994). A framework for understanding the allocation of attention in location-precued discrimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 699–739.

  6. Dorfman, D. D., & Alf, E. Jr. (1969). Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals: Rating-method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 487–496.

  7. Downing, C. J. (1988). Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 188–202.

  8. Downing, C. J., & Pinker, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 171–187). Erlbaum, NJ: Hillsdale.

  9. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Attention and visual object segmentation. In R. Parasuraman (Ed.), The attentive brain (pp. 325–499). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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

  11. Duncan, J. (1996). Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI. Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 549–578). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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

  13. Egly, R., & Homa, D. (1984). Sensitization of the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 778–793.

  14. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

  15. 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.

  16. Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583–587.

  17. Fisher, D. L. (1982). Limited-channel models of automatic detection: Capacity and scanning in visual search. Psychological Review, 89, 662–692.

  18. Fisher, D. L. (1984). Central capacity limits in consistent mapping, visual search tasks: Four channels or more? Cognitive Psychology, 16, 449–484.

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

  20. Geyer, T., Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2006). Cross-trial priming in visual search for singleton conjunction targets: Role of repeated target and distractor features. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 736–749.

  21. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1995). Visual attention to surfaces in 3-dimensional space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92, 11155–11159.

  22. Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29–44.

  23. Julesz, B. (1971). Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  24. Juola, J. F., Crouch, T., & Cocklin, T. (1987). Voluntary control of attention near the fovea. Acta Psychologica, 64, 207–217.

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

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

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

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

  29. Kramer, A. F., & Jacobson, A. (1991). Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 267–284.

  30. 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, 126, 3–13.

  31. 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, 907–917.

  32. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101–124.

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

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

  35. Müller, H. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1991). Luminance-increment detection: Capacity-limited or not? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 107–124.

  36. Müller, H. J., & O’Grady, R. B. (2000). Dimension-based visual attention modulates dual-judgment accuracy in Duncan’s (1984) one versus two-object report paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1332–1351.

  37. Müller, H. J., O’Grady, R. B., & Krummenacher, J. (2008). Spatial cuing modulates object-based selection in Baylis and Driver’s (1993) within versus between-object judgment paradigm. Psychological Research (in press).

  38. Nakayama, K., & Silverman, G. H. (1986a). Serial and parallel encoding of visual feature conjunctions. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 27, 82. (a).

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

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

  41. O’Grady, R. B., & Müller, H. J. (2000). Object-based selection operates on a grouped array of locations. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1655–1667.

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

  43. 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.

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

  45. Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282–299.

  46. Treisman, A. M. (1983). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 194–214.

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

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

  49. van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1993). The role of position in object selection in vision. Psychological Research, 56, 44–58.

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

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

  52. Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 676–681.

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant to H.J. Müller and an ESRC studentship to R.B. O’Grady.

Author information

Correspondence to Hermann J. Müller.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Basic permutation of target-present (1) and target-absent (0) incidents on each of the cued and two uncued rings under valid and invalid-cueing conditions, on trials with spatially informative cues in Experiment 1
Table 5 Basic permutation of target-present (1) and target-absent (0) incidents on each of the close, middle, and distant rings, on neutral trials in Experiment 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller, H.J., O’Grady, R.B. Object-based selection operating on a spatial representation made salient by dimensional segmentation mechanisms: a re-investigation of Egly and Homa (1984). Psychological Research 73, 271–286 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0213-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatial Attention
  • Neutral Trial
  • Depth Plane
  • Depth Condition
  • Distant Ring