Advertisement

Uncertainty as a determinant of attentional control settings

  • Hanshin Kim
  • Bo Youn Park
  • Yang Seok ChoEmail author
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that attentional capture occurs based on attentional control settings. These settings specify what features are selected for processing as well as what features are filtered out. To examine how attentional control settings are flexibly constructed when target and/or distractor features are uncertain, the current paper presents four experiments in which the numbers of target and distractor features were manipulated. The results showed that attentional control settings were configured in terms of a fixed feature when either the target or the distractor feature was uncertain and the other was fixed over trials. In addition, attention was tuned towards the specific target feature based on attentional control settings when both target and distractor features were either fixed or uncertain. The selectivity of the target or distractor feature in the attentional control setting depended on which of the target and distractor features were defined with uncertainty. These results indicate that attentional control settings are flexibly determined by given task demands, especially including the predictability of target and distractor features.

Keywords

Attentional control settings Attention capture Spatial attention Spatial cueing Visual attention 

Notes

References

  1. Adamo, M., Pun, C., Pratt, J., & Ferber, S. (2008). Your divided attention please! The maintenance of multiple attentional control sets over distinct regions in space. Cognition, 107(1), 295-303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamo, M., Wozny, S., Pratt, J., & Ferber, S. (2010). Parallel, independent attentional control settings for colors and shapes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(7), 1730-1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. A., & Folk, C. L. (2012). Dissociating location-specific inhibition and attention shifts: Evidence against the disengagement account of contingent capture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1183-1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacon, W., F., & Egeth, H. E., (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(5), 485-496.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, S. I., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2010). The role of relational information in contingent capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1460-1476.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, S. I., Harris, A. M., Venini, D., & Retell, J. D. (2014). Visual search for color and shape: When is the gaze guided by feature relationships, when by feature values? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 264-291.Google Scholar
  7. Biderman, D., Biderman, N., Zivony, A., & Lamy, D. (2017). Contingent capture is weakened in search for multiple features from different dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1974-1992. Google Scholar
  8. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, S. A., & Cho, Y. S., (2018). Multiple attentional control settings at distinct locations without the confounding of repetition priming. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1718-1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dombrowe, I., Donk, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2011). The costs of switching attentional sets. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(8), 2481-2488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folk, C. L., & Anderson, B. A. (2010). Target-uncertainty effects in attentional capture: Color-singleton set or multiple attentional control settings? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 421-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 847-858.Google Scholar
  14. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030-1044.Google Scholar
  15. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 20(2), 317-329.Google Scholar
  16. Grubert, A., & Eimer, M. (2015a). Rapid parallel attentional target singleton in single-color and multiple-color visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 86-101.Google Scholar
  17. Grubert, A., & Eimer, M. (2015b). All set, Indeed! N2pc components reveal simultaneous attentional control settings for multiple target colors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1215-1230.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, A. M., Becker, S. I., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Capture by colour: Evidence for dimension-specific singleton capture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(7), 2305-2321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irons, J. L., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2012). All set! Evidence of simultaneous attentional control settings for multiple target colors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 758-775.Google Scholar
  20. Irons, J. L., & Leber, A. B. (2016). Choosing attentional control settings in a dynamically changing environment. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 2031-2048. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 187-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(4), 346-354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of Practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(2), 125-139.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, K. S., & Weissman, D. H. (2010). Involuntary transfer of a top-down attentional set into the focus of attention: Evidence from a contingent attentional capture paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1495-1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelli, D. G. (1997a). Pixel independence: Measuring spatial interactions on a CRT display. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 443-446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelli, D. G. (1997b). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schönhammer, J. G., Grubert, A., Kerzel, D., & Becker, S. I. (2016). Attentional guidance by relative features: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Psychophysiology, 53(7), 1074-1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schreij, D., Owens, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(2), 208-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. M. J. Driver (Ed.), Attention & performance XVIII (pp. 105-125): Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Theeuwes, J., & Burger, R. (1998). Attentional control during visual search: the effect of irrelevant singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1342-1353.Google Scholar
  33. Theeuwes, J., & Godijn, R. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(5), 764-770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Guided search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In W. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 99-119), New York, NY: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Worschech, F., & Ansorge, U. (2012). Top-down search for color prevents voluntary directing of attention to informative singleton cues. Experimental Psychology, 59(3), 153-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKorea UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations