Across humans' evolutionary history, detecting animate entities in the visual field (such as prey and predators) has been critical for survival. One of the defining features of animals is their motion-self-propelled and self-directed. Does such animate motion capture visual attention? To answer this question, we compared the time to detect targets involving objects that were moving predictably as a result of collisions (inanimate motion) with the time to detect targets involving objects that were moving unpredictably, having been in no such collisions (animate motion). Across six experiments, we consistently found that targets involving objects that underwent animate motion were responded to more quickly than targets involving objects that underwent inanimate motion. Moreover, these speeded responses appeared to be due to the perceived animacy of the objects, rather than due to their uniqueness in the display or involvement of a top-down strategy. We conclude that animate motion does indeed capture visual attention.

No abstract

There is considerable evidence that overlearned symbols, especially arrows, can orient attention to peripheral locations. In 2003, Pratt and Hommel showed that when 1 arrow is selected from a set of arrows, based on an attentional control setting for a specific target color, the selected arrow determines the orientation of attention. Recently, Leblanc and Jolicoeur (2010) reexamined this finding, and concluded that spatial proximity of the arrow to the target, not the symbolic value of the arrow, determines the orienting of attention. Here, we manipulated both the symbolic value of the cue (direction arrows or directionless circles) and the proximity of the cue to the peripheral target location (near or far), and found that although proximity does play a role in the orienting of attention (larger cuing effects were found with far cues than near cues), the symbolic content of the cue also plays an important role (larger cuing effects were found with arrows than circles). Thus, both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of cues affect the orienting of attention.

In their 2003 article, Abrams and Christ found that the onset of motion captured attention more effectively than either the offset of motion or continuous motion. Abrams and Christ conceptualized the capture to be occurring at a level higher than does detection of luminance changes in the stimulus. To examine this claim, in the present experiments we replicated their critical experiment but used isoluminant stimuli, which do not produce the low-level luminance transients typically associated with motion. Under isoluminant conditions, we found a pattern of results very similar to that found previously with luminance-defined stimuli, indicating that attention can be prioritized on the basis of perceived motion onset by an object in the absence of low-level luminance transients. This may reflect an evolutionary adaptation to bias attention toward objects that exhibit characteristics of animacy, such as abruptly changing from a static to a dynamic state.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract