Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 247–253 | Cite as

Configural and contextual prioritization in object-based attention

Brief Reports

Abstract

When attention is directed to a location within an object, other locations within that object also enjoy an attentional advantage. Recently we demonstrated that this object-based advantage is mediated by increased attentional priority assigned to locations within an already attended object and not to early sensory enhancement due to the “spread” of attention within the attended object (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002). At least two factors might contribute to the assignment of attentional priority, one related to the configuration of objects in a scene and the other related to the probability of target appearance in each location imposed by task contingencies. We investigated the relative contribution of these factors by cuing one end of one of a pair of rectangles; a subsequent target appeared most often in the cued location. We manipulated attentional priority setting by varying (1) the probability that a target would appear in each of two uncued locations and (2) the cue to target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). On invalidly cued trials, the target appeared in thehigh-probability location (defined by an absolute spatial location, e.g., upper right) 83% of the time and in thelow-probability location (e.g., lower left) 17% of the time. In both conditions, uncued targets appeared in the cued object half the time and in the uncued object half the time. At short SOAs, the same-object and probability effects were approximately additive. However, at longer SOAs, the same-object effects disappeared, and reaction times depended exclusively on location probability. These results suggest that observers adopt an implicitconfigural scanning strategy (in which unattended locations within an attended object have high priority) or an implicitcontextual scanning strategy (in which objectively high-probability locations have high priority) depending on task contingencies and the amount of time that is available to deploy attention.

References

  1. Avrahami, J. (1999). Objects of attention, objects of perception.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1604–1612.Google Scholar
  2. Behrmann, M., Zemel, R. S., &Mozer, M. C. (1998). Object-based attention and occlusion: Evidence from normal participants and a computational model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1011–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cepeda, N. J., &Kramer, A. F. (1999). Strategic effects on objectbased attentional selection.Acta Psychologica,103, 1–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Desimone, R., &Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.Annual Review of Neuroscience,18, 193–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Egeth, H. E., &Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course.Annual Review of Psychology,48, 269–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Egly, R., Driver, J., &Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 143–149.Google Scholar
  8. Geng, J. J., &Behrmann, M. (2002). Probability cuing of target location facilitates visual search implicitly in normal participants and patients with hemispatial neglect.Psychological Science,13, 520–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 419–434.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, C. M., &Egeth, H. (1998). How does feature-based attention affect visual processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1296–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moore, C.M., Yantis, S. &Vaughan, B. (1998). Object-based visual selection: Evidence from perceptual completion.Psychological Science,9, 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Palmer, S. E. (2002). Perceptual organization in vision. In S. Yantis (Vol. Ed.) & H. Pashler (Series Ed.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 1. Sensation and perception (3rd ed., pp. 177–234). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Palmer, S. E., &Rock, I. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 29–55.Google Scholar
  14. Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., &Desimone, R. (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4.Journal of Neuroscience,19, 1736–1753.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rock, I., &Gutman, D. (1981). The effect of inattention on form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shaw, M. L. (1978). A capacity allocation model for reaction time.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 586–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shomstein, S., &Yantis, S. (2002). Object-based attention: Sensory modulation or priority setting?Perception & Psychophysics,64, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Watson, S. E., &Kramer, A. F. (1999). Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 31–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations