Figural properties are prioritized for search under conditions of uncertainty: Setting boundary conditions on claims that figures automatically attract attention

Abstract

Nelson and Palmer (2007) concluded that figures/figural properties automatically attract attention after finding that participants were faster to detect/discriminate targets appearing where a portion of a familiar object was suggested in an otherwise ambiguous display. We investigated whether these effects are truly automatic and whether they generalize to another figural propertyconvexity. We found that Nelson and Palmer's results do generalize to convexity but only when participants are uncertain regarding when and where the target will appear. Dependence on uncertainty regarding target location/timing was also observed for familiarity. Thus, although we can replicate and extend Nelson and Palmer's results, our experiments show that figures do not automatically draw attention. In addition, our research went beyond Nelson and Palmer's in that we were able to separate figural properties from perceived figures. Because figural properties are regularities that predict where objects lie in the visual field, our results join other evidence that regularities in the environment can attract attention. More generally, our results are consistent with Bayesian theories in which priors are given more weight under conditions of uncertainty.

Task set and instructions influence the weight of figural priors: A psychophysical study with extremal edges and familiar configuration

“…Given that attention has been conceptualized in numerous ways (Hommel et al, 2019), it is to be noted that here "attention" may be operating to prioritize some stimulus attributes before the outcome of perceptual organization is determined, a mechanism that can be described as "priming." It has been hypothesized that attention can operate by prioritizing certain stimulus attributes (Gottlieb, 2012;Peterson et al, 2017;Shomstein, 2012;Shomstein & Yantis, 2004). Our data support the hypothesis that the instructions to pay attention to the potential presence of familiar shapes upweighted the influence of familiar parts as well as familiar configurations.…”

Prior Experience Alters the Appearance of Blurry Object Borders

“…Some have claimed that attention is automatically allocated to familiar over novel objects 29 . Yet a recent study 30 showed that previous results taken to support this claim were replicated only under conditions of search involving spatiotemporal uncertainty 31,32 . Our experiments did not involve search nor was spatiotemporal uncertainty present: each stimulus was shown in one of only two locations at a fixed interval after trial onset; hence it is unlikely that attention was automatically allocated toward the familiar object.…”

Prior Experience Alters the Appearance of Blurry Object Borders

“…Some have claimed that attention is automatically allocated to familiar over novel objects 26 . Yet a recent study 27 showed that previous results taken to support this claim were replicated only under conditions of target search involving spatiotemporal uncertainty and concluded that figural properties (e.g., familiarity, convexity, etc.) can be entered into a task-dependent attentional priority map 28,29 .…”