Author:
Bidiwala Ema Shamasdin,Scolari Miranda
Abstract
AbstractSeveral space-based and object-based attention studies suggest these selection mechanisms may be voluntarily deployed, depending on task parameters and the attentional scope of the observer. Here, we sought to elucidate factors related to involuntary deployment of object-mediated space-based attention through two experiments. Experiment 1 used a modified flanker task where a target and nearby distractor were presented within the same or different object frames, such that an object-based attentional spread should be detrimental to performance. Results showed the presence of a flanker effect with no significant difference in magnitude between grouping conditions, indicating participants may have uniformly used a diffused attentional spotlight regardless of object segmentation. In a second experiment, we manipulated the extent of the observer’s sustained attentional scope via an inducer task to determine whether object-based selection depends on the initial spotlight size. The results revealed object-based effects solely when attention narrowly encompassed the target, but not when it was widened to include the distracting flanker. This suggests the deployment of object-based attention may occur when spatial attention is initially focused narrowly. Because selecting the whole object frame directly interfered with task goals, we conclude that object-based attention may not always fully conform to relevant task goals or operate in a goal-oriented manner. We discuss these results in the context of existing literature while proposing a reconciliation of previously inconsistent findings of object-based selection.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sensory Systems,Language and Linguistics,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference67 articles.
1. Al-Janabi, S., & Greenberg, A. S. (2016). Target–object integration, attention distribution, and object orientation interactively modulate object-based selection. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1968–1984. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1126-3
2. Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 834–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.2.834
3. Barras, C., & Kerzel, D. (2017). Salient-but-irrelevant stimuli cause attentional capture in difficult, but attentional suppression in easy visual search. Psychophysiology, 54, 1826–1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12962
4. Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). Object-based attentional mechanisms: Evidence from patients with unilateral neglect. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance series. Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 351–375). MIT Press.
5. Bouma, H. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226, 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/226177a0
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献