Theeuwes (1992) found a distracting effect of irrelevant-dimension singletons in a task involving search for a known target. He argued from this that selectivity is determined solely by stimulus salience; the parallel stage of visual processing cannot provide top-down guidance to the attentive stage sufficient to permit completely selective use of task-relevant information. We argue that in the task used by Theeuwes, subjects may have adopted the strategy of searching for an odd form even though the specific target form was known. In Experiment 1, we replicated Theeuwes's findings. Search for a circle target among diamond nontargets was disrupted by the presence of a diamond nontarget that was uniquely colored. In two subsequent experiments, we discouraged the singleton detection strategy, forcing subjects to search for the target feature. There was no distracting effect of a color singleton in these experiments, even with displays physically identical to those of Experiment 1, demonstrating that top-down selectivity is indeed possible during visual search. We conclude that goal-directed selection of a specific known featural identity may override stimulus-driven capture by salient featural singletons.Considerable debate has erupted recently over the sources of control over the locus of visual attention

Three central problems in the recent literature on visual attention are reviewed. The first concerns the control of attention by top-down (or goal-directed) and bottom-up (or stimulus-driven) processes. The second concerns the representational basis for visual selection, including how much attention can be said to be location- or object-based. Finally, we consider the time course of attention as it is directed to one stimulus after another.

It has recently been proposed that in searching for a target defined as a conjunction of two or more separable features, attention must be paid serially to each stimulus in a display. Support for this comes from studies in which subjects searched for a target that shared a single feature with each of two different kinds of distractor items (e.g., a red O in a field of black Os and red Ns). Reaction time increased linearly with display size. We argue that this design may obscure evidence of selectivity in search. In an experiment in which the numbers of the two distractors were unconfounded, we find evidence that subjects can search through specified subsets of stimuli. For example, subjects told to search through just the Os to find the red O target do so without searching through Ns. Implications of selective search are discussed.

No abstract

It is often assumed that the efficient detection of salient visual objects in search reflects stimulus-driven attentional capture. Evidence for this assumption, however, comes from tasks in which the salient object is task relevant and therefore may elicit a deliberate deployment of attention. In 9 experiments, participants searched for a nonsalient target (vertical among tilted bars). In each display, 1 bar was highly salient in a different dimension (e.g., color or motion). When the target and salient elements coincided only rarely, reducing the incentive to attend deliberately to the salient stimuli, response times depended little on whether the target was salient, although some interesting exceptions were observed. It is concluded that efficient selection of an element in visual search does not constitute evidence that the element captures attention in a purely stimulus-driven fashion.