Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 298–307 | Cite as

Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention?

  • Roger W. Remington
  • Charles L. Folk
  • John P. Mclean
Article

Abstract

Under certain circumstances, external stimuli will elicit an involuntary shift of spatial attention, referred to as attentional capture. According to the contingent involuntary orienting account (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), capture is conditioned by top-down factors that set attention to respond involuntarily to stimulus properties relevant to one’s behavioral goals. Evidence for this comes from spatial cuing studies showing that a spatial cuing effect is observed only when cues have goal-relevant properties. Here, we examine alternative, decision-level explanations of the spatial cuing effect that attribute evidence of capture to postpresentation delays in the voluntary allocation of attention, rather than to on-line involuntary shifts in direct response to the cue. In three spatial cuing experiments, delayed-allocation accounts were tested by examining whether items at the cued location were preferentially processed. The experiments provide evidence that costs and benefits in spatial cuing experiments do reflect the on-line capture of attention. The implications of these results for models of attentional control are discussed.

Keywords

Visual Search Compatibility Effect Attentional Capture Invalid Trial Color Singleton 
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.

References

  1. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention.Psychological Review,97, 523–547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cave K. R., &Wolf, J. M. (1990). Modelling the role of parallel processing in visual search.Cognitive Psychology,22, 225–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Eriksen, C. W., &Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Folk, C. L., &Remington, R. W. (1996). When knowledge doesn’t help: Limitations on the flexibility of attentional control. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Cole, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 271–295). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Folk, C. L., &Remington, R. W. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 847–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 & Performance,18, 1030–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., &Johnston, J. C. (1993). Contingent attentional capture: A reply to Yantis (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 682–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 & Performance,20, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kramer, A. F., &Jacobson, A. (1991). Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lavie, N., &Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 183–197.Google Scholar
  12. Müller, H. J., &Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32A, 3–25.Google Scholar
  14. Remington, R. W., Johnston, J. C., &Yantis, S. (1992). Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations.Psychological Monographs,74 (11, Whole No. 498).Google Scholar
  16. Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Theeuwes, J. (1996). Perceptual selectivity for color and form: On the nature of the interference effect. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 297–314). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Theeuwes, J., &Burger, R. (1998). Attentional control during visual search: The effect of irrelevant singletons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1342–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Treisman, A., &Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolf, J. M., Cave, K. R., &Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yantis, S., &Egeth, H. E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yantis, S., &Hillstrom, A. P. (1994). Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yantis, S., &Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 601–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yantis S., &Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger W. Remington
    • 1
  • Charles L. Folk
    • 2
  • John P. Mclean
    • 3
  1. 1.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field
  2. 2.Villanova UniversityVillanova
  3. 3.University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations