Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 6, pp 1590–1608 | Cite as

Search asymmetry and eye movements in infants and adults

  • Scott A. AdlerEmail author
  • Pamela Gallego
Article

Abstract

Search asymmetry is characterized by the detection of a feature-present target amidst feature-absent distractors being efficient and unaffected by the number of distractors, whereas detection of a feature-absent target amidst feature-present distractors is typically inefficient and affected by the number of distractors. Although studies have attempted to investigate this phenomenon with infants (e.g., Adler, Inslicht, Rovee-Collier, & Gerhardstein in Infant Behavioral Development, 21, 253–272, 1998; Colombo, Mitchell, Coldren, & Atwater in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 98–109, 1990), due to methodological limitations, their findings have been unable to definitively establish the development of visual search mechanisms in infants. The present study assessed eye movements as a means to examine an asymmetry in responding to feature-present versus feature-absent targets in 3-month-olds, relative to adults. Saccade latencies to localize a target (or a distractor, as in the homogeneous conditions) were measured as infants and adults randomly viewed feature-present (R among Ps), feature-absent (P among Rs), and homogeneous (either all Rs or all Ps) arrays at set sizes of 1, 3, 5, and 8. Results indicated that neither infants’ nor adults’ saccade latencies to localize the target in the feature-present arrays were affected by increasing set sizes, suggesting that localization of the target was efficient. In contrast, saccade latencies to localize the target in the feature-absent arrays increased with increasing set sizes for both infants and adults, suggesting an inefficient localization. These findings indicate that infants exhibit an asymmetry consistent with that found with adults, providing support for functional bottom-up selective attention mechanisms in early infancy.

Keywords

Infants Development Visual search Eye movements Selective attention Saliency Bottom-up 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grant No. R03-MH085994-01A1 from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to the first author. An earlier version of these data was presented at the meeting of the Vision Science Society, Naples, FL, May 2011. We would like to thank Jeremy Wolfe, Ben Vincent, and two anonymous reviewers who provided insightful input that greatly improved this article. We would also like to thank all of the undergraduate students who helped in testing the infants. Most importantly we would like to thank the parents and infants for their participation, without whom none of this work would have been possible.

References

  1. Adler, S. A. (2005). Visual search and pop-out in infants. In L. Itti, G. Rees, & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of attention. London: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, S. A., Bala, J., & Krauzlis, R. J. (2002). Primacy of spatial information in guiding target selection for pursuit and saccade. Journal of Vision, 2, 627–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler, S. A., & Haith, M. M. (2003). The nature of infants’ visual expectations for event content. Infancy, 4, 389–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adler, S. A., Inslicht, S., Rovee-Collier, C., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1998). Perceptual asymmetry and memory retrieval in 3-month-old infants. Infant Behavioral Development., 21, 253–272.Google Scholar
  5. Adler, S. A., & Orprecio, J. (2006). The eyes have it: Visual pop-out in infants and adults. Developmental Science.Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson, J. (2000). The developing visual brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bahrick, L. E., Walker, A. S., & Neisser, U. (1981). Selective looking by infants. Cognitive Development, 13, 377–390.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, S. I. (2010). The role of target-distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boutsen, L., & Marendaz, C. (2001). Detection of shape orientation depends on salient axes of symmetry & elongation: Evidence from visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 404–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braddick, O., & Atkinson, J. (2011). Development of human visual function. Vision Research, 51, 1588–1609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulf, H., Valenza, E., & Simion, F. (2009). The visual search of an illusory figure: A comparison between 6-month-old infants and adults. Perception, 38, 1313–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Canfield, R. L., Smith, E. G., Brezsnyak, M. P., & Snow, K. L. (1997). Information processing through the first year of life: A longitudinal study using the visual expectation paradigm. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 62, 1–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrasco, M., McLean, T. L., Katz, S. M., & Frieder, K. S. (1998). Feature asymmetries in visual search: Effects of display duration, target eccentricity, orientation and spatial frequency. Vision Research, 38, 347–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cave, K. R. (1999). The Feature Gate model of visual selection. Psychological Research, 62, 182–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, L. K. H., & Hayward, W. G. (2013). Visual search. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, L. B. (1972). Attention-getting and attention-holding processes of infants visual preference. Child Development, 43, 869–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coldren, J. T., & Haaf, R. A. (2000). Asymmetries in infants’ attention to the presence or absence of features. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 161, 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colombo, J., Mitchell, D. W., Coldren, J. T., & Atwater, J. D. (1990). Discrimination learning during the first year of life: Stimulus and positional cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 98–109.Google Scholar
  19. Colombo, J., Ryther, J. S., Frick, J. E., & Gifford, J. J. (1995). Visual pop out in infants: Evidence for preattentive search in 3- and 4-month-olds. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 266–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J., Zuvic, S., & Visser, T. (2001). The preattentive emperor has no clothes: A dynamic redressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 578–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckstein, M. P. (2011). Visual search: A retrospective. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Findlay, J. M. (1997). Saccade target selection in visual search. Vision Research, 37, 617–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerhardstein, P., Kraebel, K., Gillis, J., & Lassiter, S. (2002). Visual search for high-level configural differences as well as low-level critical features is highly efficient early in childhood. Developmental Psychobiology, 41, 241–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerhardstein, P., & Rovee-Collier, C. (2002). The development of visual search in infants and very young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 194–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gitelman, D. R. (2002). ILAB: A program for post experimental eye movement analysis. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34(4), 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gronqvist, H., Gredeback, G., & von Hofsten, C. (2006). Developmental asymmetries between horizontal and vertical tracking. Vision Research, 46, 1754–1761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1995). Visual attention to surfaces in three-dimensional space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92, 11155–11159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 787–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphreys, G. W., & Mavritsaki, E. (2012). Models of visual search: From abstract function to biological constraint. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (Second edition, pp. 57-75). Guilford Press: New York. Psychology, 23, 420-456.-->Google Scholar
  32. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, M. H. (1995). The development of visual attention: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. In M. S. Gazzinga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 735–747). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Joseph, J. S., Chun, M. M., & Nakayama, K. (1997). Attentional requirements in a ‘preattentive’ feature search task. Nature, 387, 805–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Julesz, B. (1984). A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision. Trends in Neuroscience, 7, 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keech, T. D., & Resca, L. (2010). Eye movement trajectories in active visual search: Contributions of attention, memory, and scene boundaries to pattern formation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 114–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35, 1897–1916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin, D. T., & Angelone, B. L. (2001). Visual Search for a socially defined feature: What causes the search asymmetry favoring cross-races faces. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 423–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malinowski, P., & Hübner, R. (2001). The effect of familiarity on visual-search performance: Evidence for learned basic features. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 458–463.Google Scholar
  40. McSorley, E., & Findlay, J. M. (2003). Saccade target selection in visual search: Accuracy improves when more distractors are present. Journal of Vision, 3, 877–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagy, A., & Cone, S. M. (1996). Asymmetries in simple feature searches for color. Vision Research, 36, 2837–2847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakayama, K., & Martini, P. (2011). Situating visual search. Vision Research, 51, 1526–1537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nakayama, K., & Silverman, G. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neisser, U. (1966). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  45. Palmer, E. M., Fencsik, D. E., Flusberg, S. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2011). Signal detection evidence for limited capacity in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2413–2424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2004). Dimensions of cognition in infancy. Intelligence, 32, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Royden, C. S., Wolfe, J. M., & Klempen, N. (2001). Visual search asymmetry in motion and optic flow fields. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 436–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Attention in early development: Themes and variations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Shea, S. L. (1992). Eye movements: Developmental aspects. In E. Chekaluk & K. R. Llewellyn (Eds.), The role of eye movement in perceptual processes (pp. 239–306). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheliga, B. M., Riggio, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1994). Orienting of attention and eye movements. Experimental Brain Research, 98, 507–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shen, J., & Reingold, E. (2001). Visual search asymmetry: The influence of stimulus familiarization & low level features. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 464–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sireteanu, R., Rettenbach, R., & Wagner, M. (2009). Transient preferences for repetitive visual stimuli in human infancy. Vision Research, 49, 2344–2352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, D. T., Rorden, C., & Jackson, S. R. (2004). Exogenous orienting of attention depends upon the ability to execute eye movements. Current Biology, 14, 792–795.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Theeuwes, J. (1994). Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection. Perception, 23, 429–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., & Atchley, P. (1999). Attentional effects on preattentive vision: Spatial cues affect the detection of simple features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 341–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision. Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Treisman, A., & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114, 285–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van der Stigchel, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2007). The relationship between covert and overt attention in endogenous cueing. Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 719–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vincent, B. (2011). Search asymmetries: Parallel processing of uncertain sensory information. Vision Research, 51, 1741–1750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P., & Green, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 495–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolfe, J. (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 202–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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). Oxford: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 483–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolfe, 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 and Performance, 15, 419–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Review Neuroscience, 5, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review, 115, 787–835.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zelinsky, G. J., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1997). Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 244–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.5030 TEL BuildingYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations