Object-based attention (OBA) enhances processing within the boundaries of a selected object. Larger OBA effects have been observed for horizontal compared to vertical rectangles, which were eliminated when controlling for attention shifts across the visual field meridians. We aimed to elucidate the modulatory role of the meridians on OBA. We hypothesized that the contralateral organization of visual cortex accounts for these differences in OBA prioritization. Participants viewed BL^-shaped objects and, following a peripheral cue at the object vertex, detected the presence of a target at the cued location (valid), or at a non-cued location (invalid) offset either horizontally or vertically. In Experiment 1, the single displayed object contained components crossing both meridians. In Experiment 2, one cued object and one non-cued object were displayed such that both crossed the meridians. In Experiment 3, one cued object was sequestered into one screen quadrant, with its vertex either near or far from fixation. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 revealed a horizontal shift advantage (faster RTs for horizontal shifts across the vertical meridian compared to vertical shifts across the horizontal meridian), regardless of whether shifts take place within a cued object (Experiment 1) or between objects (Experiment 2). Results from Experiment 3 revealed no difference between horizontal and vertical shifts for objects that were positioned far from fixation, although the horizontal shift advantage reappeared for objects near fixation. These findings suggest a critical modulatory role of visual field meridians in the efficiency of reorienting object-based attention.

Object-based attention (OBA) enhances processing within an attended object. We previously found that attention shifts that crossed the visual field meridians were faster horizontally than vertically, which we named a Shift Direction Anisotropy (SDA). We aimed to determine whether the SDA depends upon attention shift meridian crossings of object boundaries, target locations, or both. Participants viewed an ‘L’-shaped object and responded to a target at the cued vertex location (valid) or at non-cued object locations offset horizontally (invalid-horizontal) or vertically (invalid-vertical). In Experiment 1, object boundaries and target locations were positioned either crossing or not crossing the meridians. In Experiments 2A and 2B, object boundaries were held constant (always crossing or never crossing the meridians, respectively) while target locations were manipulated (randomly crossing or non-crossing). In Experiments 3A and 3B, target locations were held constant while object boundaries were manipulated. In Experiment 4, the object was removed to determine whether object-based or space-based attentional resources were being deployed. The SDA emerged only when target locations necessitated shifts that crossed the meridians, regardless of object placement, demonstrating that the SDA is driven by target location relative to the meridians and that OBA processes prioritize specific target locations within an object.

Object-based attention (OBA) enhances processing within an attended object. We previously found that attention shifts that crossed the visual field meridians were faster horizontally than vertically, which we named a Shift Direction Anisotropy (SDA). We aimed to determine whether the SDA depends upon attention shift meridian crossings of object boundaries, target locations, or both. Participants viewed an 'L'-shaped object and responded to a target at the cued vertex location (valid) or at non-cued object locations offset horizontally (invalid-horizontal) or vertically (invalid-vertical). In Experiment 1, object boundaries and target locations were positioned either crossing or not crossing the meridians. In Experiments 2A and 2B, object boundaries were held constant (always crossing or never crossing the meridians, respectively) while target locations were manipulated (randomly crossing or non-crossing). In Experiments 3A and 3B, target locations were held constant while object boundaries were manipulated. In Experiment 4, the object was removed to determine whether object-based or space-based attentional resources were being deployed. The SDA emerged only when target locations necessitated shifts that crossed the meridians, regardless of object placement, demonstrating that the SDA is driven by target location relative to the meridians and that OBA processes prioritize specific target locations within an object.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

People tend to think they are not susceptible to change blindness and overestimate their ability to detect salient changes in scenes. Here, we investigated whether participants’ metacognitive judgements of change detection ability predict change blindness. In Experiment 1, participants completed a change blindness task in which participants viewed alternating versions of a scene until they detected what changed between them and 6-7 months later, provided their metacognitive judgements. We found that changes rated as more likely to be spotted were detected faster than changes rated as more unlikely to be spotted. Metacognitive judgements continued to predict change blindness when accounting for low-level image properties (i.e., change size and eccentricity). In Experiment 2, metacognitive judgements from a new group of participants were compared to those collected in Experiment 1 to determine whether people are better predicting their own change blindness or if the predictions from others are equally effective. There was no effect of participant group on the relationship between metacognitive judgements and change blindness. Finally, in Experiment 3, we investigated whether metacognitive judgements are based on a high-level image property – semantic similarity. An independent group of participants provided descriptions of the two versions of the scenes and another group rated the similarity between the descriptions. We found that changes rated as more similar were judged as being more difficult to detect than changes rated as less similar; however, semantic similarity was not predictive of change blindness. These findings reveal that (1) people can accurately rate the relative difficulty of different changes and predict change blindness for different images and (2) metacognitive judgements of change detection likelihood are not fully explained by low-level and semantic image properties.

No abstract