Psychological Research

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 175–181 | Cite as

Analog versus discrete shifts of attention across the visual field

  • Garvin Chastain


Two discrimination experiments were run to investigate analog versus discrete properties of a shift of visual spatial attention. Central cuing was used in Experiment 1, whereas peripheral cuing was used in Experiment 2. Presentation of a probe stimulus between fixation and the target (Distance 1), opposite fixation from the target (Distance 3), or away from an imaginary line running from the target through fixation (Distance 2) permitted a fine-grained analysis of attention at those loci across target-probe delays. D-prime analyses in both experiments suggest that attention is shifted in a discrete manner between locations. Sensitivity to probes was generally greater when the probe was aligned with the target and fixation, with Distance 3 equal to Distance 1, than when it was away (at Distance 2). Analysis of sensitivity to targets across cue-probe delays suggests that attention was directed to the probe upon its appearance.


Visual Field Spatial Attention Probe Stimulus Discrimination Experiment Discrete Manner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chastain, G. (1991). Is processing level set by the first pattern encountered during a covert visual attention shift? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. Chastain, G. (1992). Is rapid performance improvement across short precue-target delays due to masking from peripheral precues?Acta Psychologica, 79,101–114.Google Scholar
  3. Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. (1989). Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 719–746.Google Scholar
  4. Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859–878.Google Scholar
  5. Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments upon the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.Google Scholar
  6. Downing, C. J. (1988). Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 188–202.Google Scholar
  7. Egly, R., & Homa, D. (1991). Reallocation of visual attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 142–159.Google Scholar
  8. Eriksen, C. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 299–305.Google Scholar
  9. Hoffmann, J. E., Nelson, B., & Houck, M. R. (1983). The role of attentional resources in automatic detection.Cognitive Psychology, 15, 379–410.Google Scholar
  10. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1977). Effects of visual grouping on immediate recall and selectiva attention. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 307–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy & J. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. LaBerge, D. (1983). The spatial extent of attention to letters and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371–379.Google Scholar
  14. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1986). Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect.Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 188–200.Google Scholar
  15. Muller, H. J., & Findlay, J. M. (1987). Sensitivity and criterion effects in the spatial cuing of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 383–399.Google Scholar
  16. Posner, M. I., Snyder, R. R., & Davidson, D. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.Google Scholar
  17. Prinzmetal, W. (1981). Principles of feature integration in visual perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 330–340.Google Scholar
  18. Remington, R., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 393–399.Google Scholar
  19. Sagi, D., & Julesz, B. (1986). Fast noninertial shifts of attention.Spatial Vision, 1, 141–149.Google Scholar
  20. Shaw, M. L. (1984). Division of attention among spatial locations: A fundamental difference between detection of letters and detection of luminance increments. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X(pp. 109–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Shepard R. N.& Cooper L. A. (1982).Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three dimensional objects.Science, 171, 701–703.Google Scholar
  23. Shepherd, M., & Muller, H. J. (1989). Movement versus focusing of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 146–154.Google Scholar
  24. Shulman, G. L., Remington, R. W., & McLean, J. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 522–526.Google Scholar
  25. Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1981).Left brain, right brain. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  26. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Research, 95, 15–48.Google Scholar
  27. Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.Cognitive Psychology, 14. 107–141.Google Scholar
  28. Tsal, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.Google Scholar
  29. Tsal, Y. (1989). Do illusory conjunctions support the feature integration theory? A critical review.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 394–400.Google Scholar
  30. Van der Heijden, A. H. C., Wolters, G., & Enkeling, M. (1989). The effects of advance location cuing on latencies in a single-letter recognition task.Psychological Research, 50, 94–102.Google Scholar
  31. Wetherill, G. B., & Levitt, H. (1965). Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 18, 1–10.Google Scholar
  32. Yantis, S. (1988). On analog movements of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 203–206.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garvin Chastain
    • 1
  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations