Attention Speeds Up Visual Information Processing: Selection for Perception or Selection for Action?

  • Katharina Weiß
  • Ingrid Scharlau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5803)


Attention speeds up information processing. Although this finding has a long history in experimental psychology, it has found less regard in computational models of visual attention. In psychological research, two frameworks explain the function of attention.Selection for perception emphasizes that perception- or consciousness-related processing presupposes selection of relevant information, whereas selection for action emphasizes that action constraints make selection necessary. In the present study, we ask whether or how far attention, as measured by the speed-up of information processing, is based on selection for perception or selection for action. The accelerating effect was primarily based on selection for perception, but there was also a substantial effect of selection for action.


visuo-spatial attention prior entry selection for action selection for perception 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J.F.X., Goodale, M.A.: Size contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr. Biol. 5, 679–685 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allport, A.: Attention and Selection-For-Action. In: Perspectives on Perception and Action, pp. 395–419. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansorge, U., Neumann, O.: Intentions Determine the Effect of Invisible Metacontrast-Masked Primes: Evidence for Top-Down Contingencies in a Peripheral Cuing Task. J. Exp. Psychol. Human. 31, 762–777 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broadbent, D.E.: Perception and Communication. Pergamon Press, London (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bröckelmann, A.K., Junghöfer, M., Scharlau, I., Hamker, F.H.: Reentrant processing from attentional task sets: Converging support from magnetoencephalography and computational modeling (in preparation)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deutsch, J.A., Deutsch, D.: Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychol. Rev. 70, 80–90 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Folk, C.L., Remington, R.W., Johnston, J.C.: Involuntary Covert Orienting is Contingent on Attentional Control Settings. J. Exp. Psychol. Human. 18, 1030–1044 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamker, F.H.: A Dynamic Model of How Feature Cues Guide Spatial Attention. Vision Res. 44, 501–521 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Itti, L., Koch, C.: Computational Modeling of Visual Attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 194–203 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahneman, D.: Treisman: The Cost of Visual Filtering. J. Exp. Psychol. Human. 9, 510–522 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mack, A., Rock, I.: Inattentional Blindness. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann, O., Scharlau, I.: Visual Attention and the Mechanism of Metacontrast. Psychol. Res. – Psych. Fo. 71, 626–633 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neumann, O., Scharlau, I.: Experiments on the Fehrer-Raab-Effect and on the “Weather-Station-Model” of visual backward masking. Psych. Fo. 71, 667–677 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pashler, H.E.: The Psychology of Attention. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Posner, M.I.: Orienting of Attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 32, 3–25 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rensink, R.A.: Change Detection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 245–277 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rensink, R.A., O’Regan, J.K., Clark, J.J.: To See or not to See: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8, 368–373 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riddoch, M.J., Humphreys, G.W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., Willson, K.: Seeing the Action: Neuropsychological Evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 82–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scharlau, I.: Leading, but not Trailing, Primes Influence Temporal Order Perception: Further Evidence for an Attentional Account of Perceptual Latency Priming. Percept. Psychophys. 64, 1346–1360 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scharlau, I.: Evidence Against Response Bias in Temporal Order Tasks with Attention Manipulation by Masked Primes. Psychol. Res. – Psych. Fo. 68, 224–236 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scharlau, I.: Temporal Processes in Prime-Mask Interaction: Assessing Perceptual Consequences of Masked Information. Adv. Cognitive Psychol. 3, 241–255 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scharlau, I., Ansorge, U.: Direct Parameter Specification of an Attention Shift: Evidence from Perceptual Latency Priming. Vision Res. 43, 1351–1363 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scharlau, I., Ansorge, U., Horstmann, G.: Latency Facilitation in Temporal Order Judgments: Time Course of Facilitation as Function of Judgment Type. Acta Psychol. 122, 129–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scharlau, I., Neumann, O.: Perceptual Latency Priming by Masked and Unmasked Stimuli: Evidence for an Attentional Explanation. Psychol. Res. – Psych. Fo. 67, 184–197 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schneider, W.X., Deubel, H.: Selection-for-Perception and Selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: a review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven-saccade control. In: Prinz, W., Hommel, B. (eds.) Attentenion and Performance XIX. Common mechanisms in perception and action, pp. 609–627. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shore, D.I., Spence, C., Klein, R.M.: Visual Prior Entry. Psychol. Sci. 12, 205–212 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simons, D.J., Chabris, C.F.: Gorillas in our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events. Perception 28, 1059–1074 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stelmach, L.B., Herdman, C.M.: Directed Attention and Perception of Temporal Order. J. Exp. Psychol. Human. 17, 539–550 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Titchener, E.M.: Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention. MacMillan, New York (1908)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Treisman, A., Gelade, G.: A Feature Integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Treisman, A., Schmidt, H.: Illusory Conjunctions in the Perception of Objects. Cognitive Psychol. 14, 107–141 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weiß, K., Scharlau, I.: Simultaneity and Temporal Order Perception: Different Sides of the Same Coin? Evidence from a Visual Prior Entry Study (submitted)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolfe, J.M.: Guided Search 2.0. A Revised Model of Visual Search. Psychon. B. Rev. 1, 202–238 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wundt, W.: Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie [Main Features of Physiological Psychology]. Engelmann, Leipzig (1887)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yantis, S., Jonides, J.: Abrupt Visual Onsets and Selective Attention: Voluntary versus Automatic Allocation. J. Exp. Psychol. Human. 16, 121–134 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Weiß
    • 1
  • Ingrid Scharlau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations