Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Availability of attention affects time-to-contact estimation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To estimate the time-to-contact (TTC) of a moving object, numerous studies have focused on the type of information or gaze strategy used by the observer. However, it remains to be determined whether and how attention could affect TTC estimation. In particular, how does TTC estimation operate when less attention is available? To answer this question, we conducted two experiments in which the participants had to perform an absolute (Experiment 1) or relative (Experiment 2) prediction-motion task, either alone (i.e., in single-task condition) or along with a secondary, visual working-memory task (i.e., in dual-task condition). In both experiments, we found that TTC estimation was superior in dual-task condition relative to single-task condition. This finding suggests that the reduction of available attention actually improves TTC estimation. We discuss possible explanations as well as theoretical implications for this seemingly counter-intuitive finding. Further research is needed to investigate if (in)attention facilitates or only shifts TTC estimation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Matthews and Meck (2016), two hypotheses may explain why attention may influence the clocking strategy: because an attentional gate controls the flow of pulses from a pacemaker into an accumulator, or because attention determines the latency with which the flow of pulses begins after the stimulus onset.

  2. Kerzel (2003) and Makin and Poliakoff (2011) argue that attention may be necessary to maintain mental extrapolation of target motion.

  3. Because TTC can be both an independent variable (the occlusion time applied to the moving object) and also the dependent variable that has to be judged (the moment the object is thought to arrive at the finishing line), we will refer to actual TTC as being the independent variable and estimated TTC as the judgement of the participants.

  4. According to Läkens (2013), “CL effect size expresses the probability that a randomly sampled person from one group will have a higher observed measurement than a randomly sampled person from the other group (for between-designs) or (for within-designs) the probability that an individual has a higher value on one measurement than the other”.

References

  • Allen R, McGeorge P, Pearson D, Milne AB (2004) Attention and expertise in multiple target tracking. Appl Cogn Psychol 18:337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barouillet P, Bernardin S, Camos V (2004) Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:83–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barouillet P, Bernardin S, Portat S, Vergauwe E, Camos V (2007) Time and cognitive load in working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 33:570–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baurès R, Hecht H (2011) The effect of body posture on long-range time-to-contact estimation. Perception 40:674–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beilock SL, Carr TH, MacMahon C, Strakes JL (2002) When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol Appl 8:6–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benguigui N, Bennett SJ (2010) Ocular pursuit and the estimation of time-to-contact with accelerating objects in prediction motion are controlled independently based on first-order estimates. Exp Brain Res 202:327–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett SJ, Baurès R, Hecht H, Benguigui N (2010) Eye movements influence estimation of time-to-contact in prediction motion. Exp Brain Res 206:399–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bootsma RJ, Oudejans RR (1993) Visual information about time-to-collision between two objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:1041–1052

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bosco G, Monache D, Gravano S, Indovina S, La Scaleia I, Maffei B, Zago VM, Lacquaniti F (2015) Filling gaps in visual motion for target capture. Front Integr Neurosci 9:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvel G, Maquestiaux F, Ruthruff E, Didierjean A, Hartley AA (2013) Novice motor performance: better not to verbalize. Psychon Bull Rev 20:177–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen NJ, Squire LR (1980) Preserved learning and retention of pattern-analyzing skill in amnesia: dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science 210:207–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeLucia PR (2005) Does binocular disparity or familiar size override effects of relative size on judgments of time to contact? Q J Exp Psychol 58A:865–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLucia PR, Liddell GW (1998) Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:901–914

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Engle RW (2002) Working memory capacity as executive attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fruchtman-Steinbok T, Kessler Y (2016) Does working memory load facilitate target detection? Acta Physiol (Oxf) 164:10–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75:800–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosking SG, Crassini B (2011) The influence of optic expansion rates when judging the relative time to contact of familiar objects. J Vis 11:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh H, Feldt LS (1976) Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. J Educ Behav Stat 1:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerzel D (2003) Attention maintains mental extrapolation of target position: irrelevant distractors eliminate forward displacement after implied motion. Cognition 88:109–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keselman HJ (1994) Stepwise and simultaneous multiple comparison procedures of repeated measures’ means. J Educ Behav Stat 19:127–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky M, Forster DE, Llabre MM, Jha AP (2017) The influence of time on task on mind wandering and visual working memory. Cognition 169:84–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lachter J, Forster KI, Ruthruff E (2004) Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention. Psychol Rev 111:880–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Läkens D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol 4:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt J (1979) Cognitive demands of skating and stick handling in ice hockey. Can J Appl Sport Sci 4:46–55

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DN (1976) A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 5:437–459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linares D, López-Moliner J (2016) Quickpsy: an R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. R J 8(1):122–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling S, Carrasco M (2006) Sustained and transient covert attention enhance the signal via different contrast response functions. Vis Res 46:1210–1220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • López-Moliner J, Field DT, Wann JP (2007) Interceptive timing: Prior knowledge matters. J Vis 7:1–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lugtigheid AJ, Welchman AE (2011) Evaluating methods to measure time-to-contact. Vis Res 51:2234–2241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Makin ADJ (2017) The common rate control account of prediction motion. Psychon Bull Rev. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1403-8

  • Makin ADJ, Bertamini M (2014) Do different types of dynamic extrapolation rely on the same mechanism? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40:1566–1579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Makin ADJ, Chauhan T (2014) Memory-guided tracking through physical space and feature space. J Vis 14:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Makin ADJ, Poliakoff E (2011) Do common systems control eye movements and motion extrapolation? Q J Exp Psychol 64:1327–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews WJ, Meck WH (2016) Temporal cognition: connecting subjective time to perception, attention, and memory. Psychol Bull 142:865–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre J, Zago M, Berthoz A, Lacquaniti F (2001) Does the brain model Newton’s laws? Nat Neurosci 4:693–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Motoyoshi I, Ishii T, Kamachi MG (2015) Limited attention facilitates coherent motion processing. J Vis 15:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olivers CNL, Nieuwenhuis S (2005) The beneficial effect of concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention. Psychol Sci 16:265–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olivers CNL, Nieuwenhuis S (2006) The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:364–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peper L, Bootsma RJ, Mestre DR, Bakker FC (1994) Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:591–612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017

  • Schooler JW, Engstler-Schooler TY (1990) Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid. Cogn Psychol 22:36–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MD, Chamberlin CJ (1992) Effect of adding cognitively demanding tasks on soccer skill performance. Percept Mot Skills 75:955–961

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian JR (1995) Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Percept Psychophys 57:231–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian JR (2004) The accuracy of interceptive action in time and space. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 32:167–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian JR (2005) Hitting a moving target: perception and action in the timing of rapid interceptions. Percept Psychophys 67:129–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vickery TJ, Sussman RS, Jiang YV (2010) Spatial context learning survives interference from working memory load. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:1358–1371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham DB, Goedert-Eschmann K (1999) The relation between implicit and explicit learning. Evidence for parallel development. Psychol Sci 10:531–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zago M, Bosco G, Maffei V, Iosa M, Ivanenko YP, Lacquaniti F (2004) Internal models of target motion: expected dynamics overrides measured kinematics in timing manual interceptions. J Neurophysiol 91:1620–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H, Warren WH (2015) On-line and model-based approaches to the visual control of action. Vis Res 110:190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Alice Parmentier, Old Lo, Kévin Michaud and Benjamin Gouyou for their help with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CerCo, Université de Toulouse 3, CNRS, UPS, CHU Purpan, Pavillon Baudot, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France

    Robin Baurès

  2. Laboratoire de Psychologie, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme et de l’Environnement (MSHE) Ledoux and Institut Universitaire de France, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France

    François Maquestiaux

  3. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA

    Patricia R. DeLucia

  4. CIAMS, University of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France

    Alexis Defer

  5. LIMSI-CNRS, University of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France

    Elise Prigent

Authors
  1. Robin Baurès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Maquestiaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia R. DeLucia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexis Defer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elise Prigent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Baurès.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baurès, R., Maquestiaux, F., DeLucia, P.R. et al. Availability of attention affects time-to-contact estimation. Exp Brain Res 236, 1971–1984 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5273-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5273-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation