Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 233–244 | Cite as

Visual marking and change detection

  • Jose L. Herrero
  • Ros Crawley
  • Cees van Leeuwen
  • Antonino RaffoneEmail author
Research Report

Abstract

The preview benefit from prior exposure of response-irrelevant (distracter) objects in visual search has been accounted for in terms of top-down inhibition (i.e. visual marking), bottom-up abrupt onset capture, or asynchrony-dependent perceptual segregation. We assess the relative contribution of abrupt onset and visual marking in a paradigm combining visual search with a visual working memory task. We investigated time-based selection of multiple objects for storage in visual working memory, using a change detection paradigm (Luck and Vogel in Nature 390:279–281, 1997) with distracter preview. We varied preview exposure (short vs. long), in a series of three experiments. The contribution of asynchrony-related perceptual segregation was assessed across experiments by varying the complexity of the stimuli (colored squares, oriented bars and oriented T-shapes) and the type of change detection (color or orientation), resulting in different levels of perceptual segregation between visual elements. The results suggest that bottom-up abrupt onset, visual marking and perceptual segregation factors co-operate in time-based selection for storage in visual working memory.

Keywords

Visual marking Visual working memory Visual attention Change detection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dave Barton, at the University of Sunderland, for his support in programming, and Valerie Bonnardel, Andrey Nikolaev and Michael Ziessler, for helpful comments on the manuscript. We would also like to thank Danny Dukes and Rachel Stalker for contribution in data collection and analysis. Finally, we would like to thank Michael Posner and two anonymous referees for important remarks and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Brener R (1940) An experimental investigation of memory span. J Exp Psychol 26:467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bundesen C (1990) A theory of visual attention. Psychol Rev 97:523–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bundesen C, Shibuya H, Larsen A (1985) Visual selection from multielement displays: a model for partial report. In: Posner MI, Marin O (eds) Attention and performance XI, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 631–649Google Scholar
  4. Colby CL, Goldberg ME (1999) Space and attention in parietal cortex. Ann Rev Neurosci 22:319–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Ann Rev Neurosci 18:193–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donk M (2006) The preview benefit: visual marking, feature-based inhibition, temporal. segregation, or onset capture? Vis Cogn 14:736–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donk M, Theeuwes J (2001) Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets. Percept Psychophys 63:891–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan J (1983) Perceptual selection based on alphanumeric class: evidence from partial reports. Percept Psychophys 33:533–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan J (2001) An adaptive coding model of neural function. in prefrontal cortex. Nature Rev 2:820–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC (1991) Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1:1–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gegenfurtner K, Sperling G (1993) Information transfer in iconic memory experiments. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 19:845–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobsen T, Humphreys GW, Schröger E, Roeber U (2002) Visual marking for search: behavioral and event-related potential analyses. Cogn Brain Res 14:410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang Y, Chun MM, Marks LE (2002) Visual marking: Dissociating effects of new and old set size. J Exp Psychol: Learn, Mem Cogn 28:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonides J, Yantis S (1988) Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Percept Psychophys 43:346–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamme VAF, Roelfsema PR (2000) The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci 23:571–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luck SJ, Beach NJ (1998) Visual attention and the binding problem: a neurophysiological perspective. In: Wright RD (eds) Visual attention. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 455–478Google Scholar
  17. Luck SJ, Vogel EK (1997) The capacity of VWMfor features and conjunctions. Nature 390:279–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neisser U (1967) Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollmann S., Weidner R, Humphreys GW, Olivers CNL, Müller K, Lohmann G, Wiggins CJ, Watson DG (2003) Separating distractor rejection and target detection in posterior parietal cortex—an event-related fMRI-study of visual marking. NeuroImage 18:310–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmidt BK, Vogel EK, Woodman GF, Luck SJ (2002) Voluntary and automatic attentional control of visual working memory. Percept Psychophys 64:754–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schweickert R, Boruff B (1986) Short-term memory capacity: Magic number or magic spell? J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cogn 12:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sperling G (1960) The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychol Monogr 74:1–29Google Scholar
  23. Vogel EK, Woodman GF, Luck SJ (2001) Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 27:92–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogel EK, McCollough AW, Machizawa MG (2005) Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature 438:500–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watson DG, Humphreys GW (1997) Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychol Rev 104:90–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watson DG, Humphreys GW (1998) Visual marking of moving objects: a role for top-down feature based inhibition in selection. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 24:946–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watson DG, Humphreys GW, Olivers CN (2003) Visual marking: using time in visual selection. Trends Cogn Sci 7:180–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woodman GF, Vecera SP, Luck SJ (2003) Perceptual organization influences visual working memory. Psychon Bull Rev 10:80–87PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose L. Herrero
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ros Crawley
    • 1
  • Cees van Leeuwen
    • 2
  • Antonino Raffone
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SunderlandSunderlandUK
  2. 2.Laboratory for Perceptual DynamicsRIKEN BSIWakoJapan
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations