Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking

Tombu, Michael; Seiffert, Adriane E.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.014

Cited by 99 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, they support behavioral reports linking attention and tracking performance (Yantis, 1992;Sears and Pylyshyn, 2000;Cavanagh and Alvarez, 2005;Tombu and Seiffert, 2008;Iordanescu et al, 2009;Niebergall et al, 2010). We propose that the expansion of the RF border accompanied by increases in signal-to-noise ratio in MT neurons during attentive tracking (McAdams and Maunsell, 1999;Cohen and Newsome, 2009) produce increases in the neurons' detection performance that translate into improvements in the organism's ability to track visual targets.…”

Section: Origins Of the Modulatory Signalsupporting

confidence: 63%

Expansion of MT Neurons Excitatory Receptive Fields during Covert Attentive Tracking

Niebergall

Khayat²,

Treue³

et al. 2011

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primates can attentively track moving objects while keeping gaze stationary. The neural mechanisms underlying this ability are poorly understood. We investigated this issue by recording responses of neurons in area MT of two rhesus monkeys while they performed two different tasks. During the Attend-Fixation task, two moving random dot patterns (RDPs) translated across a screen at the same speed and in the same direction while the animals directed gaze to a fixation spot and detected a change in its luminance. During the Tracking task, the animals kept gaze on the fixation spot and attentively tracked the two RDPs to report a change in the local speed of one of the patterns' dots. In both conditions, neuronal responses progressively increased as the RDPs entered the neurons' receptive field (RF), peaked when they reached its center, and decreased as they translated away. This response profile was well described by a Gaussian function with its center of gravity indicating the RF center and its flanks the RF excitatory borders. During Tracking, responses were increased relative to Attend-Fixation, causing the Gaussian profiles to expand. Such increases were proportionally larger in the RF periphery than at its center, and were accompanied by a decrease in the trial-to-trial response variability (Fano factor) relative to Attend-Fixation. These changes resulted in an increase in the neurons' performance at detecting targets at longer distances from the RF center. Our results show that attentive tracking dynamically changes MT neurons' RF profiles, ultimately improving the neurons' ability to encode the tracked stimulus features.

show abstract

Section: Origins Of the Modulatory Signalsupporting

confidence: 63%

Expansion of MT Neurons Excitatory Receptive Fields during Covert Attentive Tracking

Niebergall

Khayat²,

Treue³

et al. 2011

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 'centre looking' approach is often used in the multiple-object tracking paradigm devised by Pylyshyn and Storm (1988). In performing this task, subjects commonly fixate the central region of 'empty space' between several moving targets, a gaze strategy reported to enhance tracking accuracy and to be consistent with a 'multifocal' division of attention (Tombu and Seiffert 2008;Fehd and Seiffert 2010). Such divided attentive tracking has further been shown to involve perceptual grouping of the targets into a coherent 'virtual' object (Yantis 1992) from which its COM is derived and to generate cortical activations that extend beyond parieto-frontal eye movement networks into ventral stream object processing-related areas (Culham et al 1998).…”

Section: Are Different (Sub-optimal) Gaze Strategies Adopted Under Momentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

Grant

2015

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractMost adults can skillfully avoid potential obstacles when acting in everyday cluttered scenes. We examined how gaze and hand movements are normally coordinated for obstacle avoidance and whether these are altered when binocular depth information is unavailable. Visual fixations and hand movement kinematics were simultaneously recorded while 13 right-handed subjects reached-toprecision grasp a cylindrical household object presented alone or with a potential obstacle (wine glass) located to its left (thumb's grasp-side), right or just behind it (both closer to the finger's grasp-side) using binocular or monocular vision. Gaze and hand movement strategies differed significantly by view and obstacle location. With binocular vision, initial fixations were near the target's centre of mass (COM) around the time of hand movement onset, but usually shifted to end just above the thumb's grasp-site at initial object contact, this mainly be made by the thumb, consistent with selecting this digit for guiding the grasp. This strategy was associated with faster binocular hand movements and improved end-point grip precision across all trials than with monocular viewing, during which subjects usually continued to fixate the target closer to its COM despite a similar prevalence of thumb-first contacts. While subjects looked directly at the obstacle at each location on a minority of trials and their overall fixations on the target were somewhat biased towards the grasp-side nearest to it, these gaze behaviours were particularly marked on monocular vision-obstacle behind trials which also commonly ended in finger-first contact. Subjects avoided colliding with the wine glass under both views when on the right (finger-side) of the workspace by producing slower and straighter reaches, with this and the behind obstacle location also resulting in 'safer' (i.e., narrower) peak grip apertures and longer deceleration times than when the goal-object was alone or the obstacle was on its thumb-side. But monocular reach paths were more variable and deceleration times were selectively prolonged on finger-side and behind obstacle trials, with this latter condition further resulting in selectively increased grip closure times and corrections. Binocular vision thus provided added advantages for collision avoidance, known to require intact dorsal cortical stream processing mechanisms, particularly when the target of the grasp and potential obstacle to it were fairly closely separated in depth. Different accounts of the altered monocular gaze behaviour converged on the conclusion that additional perceptual and/or attentional resources are likely engaged compared to when continuous binocular depth information is available. Implications for people lacking binocular stereopsis are briefly considered.

show abstract

“…A target travelling at high speed or near a distracter may be more difficult to track (Tombu & Seiffert, 2010;Iordanescu, Grabowecki, & Suzuki 2009), and allocating additional tracking resource might compensate for the difficulty (Tombu & Seiffert, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exhausting attentional tracking resources with a single fast-moving object

Holcombe

Chen

2012

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• Attentional limits were assessed with wide spacing to avoid object interference.• The speed limit for tracking two objects was much slower than for tracking one.• Attentional resource theory of tracking was supported.• At least two tracking resources, one in each hemisphere.• At fast speeds, performance tracking two no better than predicted by capacity of one. AbstractDriving on a busy road, eluding a group of predators, or playing a team sport involves keeping track of multiple moving objects. In typical laboratory tasks, the number of visual targets that humans can track is about four. Three types of theories have been advanced to explain this limit. The fixed-limit theory posits a set number of attentional pointers available to follow objects. Spatial interference theory proposes that when targets are near each other, their attentional spotlights 2 mutually interfere. Resource theory asserts that a limited resource is divided among targets, and performance reflects the amount available per target. Utilising widely separated objects to avoid spatial interference, the present experiments validated the predictions of resource theory. The fastest target speed at which two targets could be tracked was much slower than the fastest speed at which one target could be tracked. This speed limit for tracking two targets was approximately that predicted if at high speeds, only a single target could be tracked. This result cannot be accommodated by the fixed-limit or interference theories. Evidently a fast target, if it moves fast enough, can exhaust attentional resources.

show abstract

Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking

Cited by 99 publications

References 46 publications

Expansion of MT Neurons Excitatory Receptive Fields during Covert Attentive Tracking

Expansion of MT Neurons Excitatory Receptive Fields during Covert Attentive Tracking

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

Exhausting attentional tracking resources with a single fast-moving object

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About