Do sudden onsets need to be perceived as new objects to capture attention? The interplay between sensory transients and display configuration

Abstract

Yantis and Jonides (1984) and Jonides and Yantis (1988) reported robust involuntary attentional capture by sudden-onsets, the origin of which has been debated. Prominent accounts have highlighted aspects that include the Bnew object^status of a sudden-onset (Yantis & Hillstrom, 1994) and the substantial luminance changes accompanying their appearance (Gellatly, Cole & Blurton, 1999;Franconeri, Hollingworth & Simons, 2005), including relative differences in the amount of sensory change between target and nontarget items (Pinto, Olivers & Theeuwes, 2008). In this research we dissociate the amount of sensory change accompanying sudden onsets from the extent to which they appear as newly created objects in search displays. We attempted to determine the relative contribution of local sensory changes and display configuration to attentional capture by sudden-onsets. We showed that the display configuration of old objects modulates the impact of capture caused by sudden-onsets.

Abrupt Onsets in Visual Search: Foundations and Emerging Issues

“…This suggests that the ability of an abrupt onset to capture attention may partly rely on the visual system's habituation to existing objects, so that a new onset can be perceived as "abrupt" or "novel". This idea is consistent with empirical findings showing that abrupt onsets produce larger capture effects when the positions of the old items are fixed rather than randomized (Chua, 2009;Owens & Spehar, 2016), when the observer is encouraged to remember the positions of the old items (Chua, 2009), and when the onset appears rarely in the task (Folk & Remington, 2015;Neo & Chua, 2006).…”

“…Collectively, the three papers by Yantis and Jonides have been cited over 5,000 times (as of April 2024). Furthermore, several comprehensive reviews on the subject already exist (Adams et al, 2022;Gaspelin et al, 2016;Owens & Spehar, 2016;Rauschenberger, 2003;Theeuwes, 2018;Theeuwes & Godijn, 2001;Yantis, 1993). Instead of attempting an exhaustive review and potentially duplicating existing efforts, we have conducted a focused examination of the three papers by Yantis and Jonides.…”

“…In the works of Yantis and Jonides (1984;1988;1990) as well as in typical real-life scenarios, the newly onset item has also been a luminance increment. Despite this, some studies have used novel paradigms purportedly capable of dissociating the luminance increment from the novelty of an abrupt onset (Brockmole & Henderson, 2005a, 2005bEnns et al, 2001;Franconeri et al, 2005;Gellatly et al, 1999;Hollingworth et al, 2010;Mathôt & Theeuwes, 2012;Owens & Spehar, 2016;. These studies, however, have yielded mixed results.…”

“…There are several pieces of evidence supporting that both the luminance-increment property and the new-object property of an onset play a role in guiding attention. First, Owens and Spehar (2016) introduced competing luminance increments in the display. They found that when there were competing luminance onsets, the magnitude of capture by an abrupt-onset item was generally weaker but not eliminated.…”