This review focuses on covert attention and how it alters early vision. I explain why attention is considered a selective process, the constructs of covert attention, spatial endogenous and exogenous attention, and feature-based attention. I explain how in the last 25 years research on attention has characterized the effects of covert attention on spatial filters and how attention influences the selection of stimuli of interest. This review includes the effects of spatial attention on discriminability and appearance in tasks mediated by contrast sensitivity and spatial resolution; the effects of feature-based attention on basic visual processes, and a comparison of the effects of spatial and feature-based attention. The emphasis of this review is on psychophysical studies, but relevant electrophysiological and neuroimaging studies and models regarding how and where neuronal responses are modulated are also discussed.

Does attention alter appearance? This critical issue, debated for over a century, remains unsettled. From psychophysical evidence that covert attention affects early vision-it enhances contrast sensitivity and spatial resolution-and from neurophysiological evidence that attention increases the neuronal contrast sensitivity (contrast gain), one could infer that attention changes stimulus appearance. Surprisingly, few studies have directly investigated this issue. Here we developed a psychophysical method to directly assess the phenomenological correlates of attention in humans. We show that attention alters appearance; it boosts the apparent stimulus contrast. These behavioral results are consistent with neurophysiological findings suggesting that attention changes the strength of a stimulus by increasing its 'effective contrast' or salience.

Does emotion affect how people see? We investigated the effects of emotion and attention, as well as their conjoint effect, on contrast sensitivity, a dimension of early vision. We manipulated the emotional valence and the attentional distribution of cues preceding a target stimulus and asked observers to judge the orientation of the target as contrast varied. This study provides the first behavioral evidence that (a) emotion enhances contrast sensitivity irrespective of attention and (b) emotion potentiates the effect of attention on contrast sensitivity.

Covert attention, the selective processing of visual information at a given location in the absence of eye movements, improves performance in several tasks, such as visual search and detection of luminance and vernier targets. An important unsettled issue is whether this improvement is due to a reduction in noise (internal or external), a change in decisional criteria, or signal enhancement. Here we show that attention can affect performance by signal enhancement. For a texture segregation task in which performance is actually diminished when spatial resolution is too high, we observed that attention improved performance at peripheral locations where spatial resolution was too low, but impaired performance at central locations where spatial resolution was too high. The counterintuitive impairment of performance that we found at the central retinal locations appears to have only one possible explanation: attention enhances spatial resolution.

We examined the effect of transient covert attention on the psychometric function for contrast sensitivity in an orientation discrimination task when the target was presented alone in the absence of distracters and visual masks. Transient covert attention decreased both the threshold (consistent with a contrast gain mechanism) and, less consistently, the slope of the psychometric function. We assessed performance at 8 equidistant locations (4.5 degrees eccentricity) and found that threshold and slope depended on target location-both were higher on the vertical than the horizontal meridian, particularly directly above fixation. All effects were robust across a range of spatial frequencies, and the visual field asymmetries increased with spatial frequency. Notwithstanding the dependence of the psychometric function on target location, attention improved performance to a similar extent across the visual field.Given that, in this study, we excluded all sources of external noise, and that we showed experimentally that spatial uncertainty cannot explain the present results, we conclude that the observed attentional benefit is consistent with signal enhancement.

This study is the first to report the benefits of spatial covert attention on contrast sensitivity in a wide range of spatial frequencies when a target alone was presented in the absence of a local post-mask. We used a peripheral precue (a small circle indicating the target location) to explore the effects of covert spatial attention on contrast sensitivity as assessed by orientation discrimination (Experiments 1-4), detection (Experiments 2 and 3) and localization (Experiment 3) tasks. In all four experiments the target (a Gabor patch ranging in spatial frequency from 0.5 to 10 cpd) was presented alone in one of eight possible locations equidistant from fixation. Contrast sensitivity was consistently higher for peripherally- than for neutrally-cued trials, even though we eliminated variables (distracters, global masks, local masks, and location uncertainty) that are known to contribute to an external noise reduction explanation of attention. When observers were presented with vertical and horizontal Gabor patches an external noise reduction signal detection model accounted for the cueing benefit in a discrimination task (Experiment 1). However, such a model could not account for this benefit when location uncertainty was reduced, either by: (a) Increasing overall performance level (Experiment 2); (b) increasing stimulus contrast to enable fine discriminations of slightly tilted suprathreshold stimuli (Experiment 3); and (c) presenting a local post-mask (Experiment 4). Given that attentional benefits occurred under conditions that exclude all variables predicted by the external noise reduction model, these results support the signal enhancement model of attention.

Covert attention, the selective processing of visual information in the absence of eye movements, improves behavioral performance. Here, we show that attention, both exogenous (involuntary) and endogenous (voluntary), can affect performance by contrast or response gain changes, depending on the stimulus size and the relative size of the attention field. These two variables were manipulated in a cueing task while varying stimulus contrast. We observed a change in behavioral performance consonant with a change in contrast gain for small stimuli paired with spatial uncertainty, but a change in response gain for large stimuli presented at one location (no uncertainty) and surrounded by irrelevant flanking distracters. A complementary neuroimaging experiment revealed that observers’ attention field was wider with than without spatial uncertainty. Our results support key predictions of the normalization model of attention, and reconcile previous, seemingly contradictory, findings on the effects of visual attention.

We investigated whether transient covert attention would differentially affect 'performance fields' (shape depicted by percent correct performance at particular locations in the visual field) for orientation discrimination, detection and localization tasks, while manipulating a number of visual factors. We found that although attention improved overall performance, it did not affect performance fields. Two patterns were observed regardless of the presence of a local post -mask, the stimulus orientation, or the task. A horizontal -vertical anisotropy (HVA) became more pronounced as spatial frequency, eccentricity and set size increased. A vertical meridian asymmetry (VMA) became more pronounced as spatial frequency and eccentricity increased. We conclude that performance fields are determined by visual, rather than by transient attentional, constraints.