First come, first served? Influence of changed object configuration on object-based attention

Abstract

Evidence for object-based attention is based mainly on studies using object displays that remain unchanged throughout, with the assumption that object representation should be completed and stabilized before it is selected for further processing. We used the modified double-rectangle cuing paradigm of Egly, Driver, and Rafal (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177, 1994) but introduced a configuration change to the cued-object display to test whether object-based attention is determined by the cued- or, alternatively, the changed-object display. Four small rectangles were presented in the initial display; critically, after one was cued, an occluder was presented to make the four small rectangles amodally completed into the double-rectangle configuration. Results show that object-based attention is determined by the changed display, but not by the cued display. This suggests that object-based attention is an interactively evolving process between object representation and attention, rather than a serial process in which attention operates after object representation is completed.

Every moment counts: smooth transitions of object boundaries reflect constant updating in object-based attention

“…We previously proposed a dynamic-updating hypothesis to explain the results that an initially attended and then changed object affects object-based attention (Lin & Yeh, 2011). In the present study, we further demonstrated that the way that the boundary of an object is changed affects objectbased attention.…”

“…Using the double-rectangle cuing paradigm (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994), we previously showed that object-based attention operates on a dynamic representation: Object-based attentional guidance is affected by subsequent changes occurring to an attended object (Lin & Yeh, 2011). The present study provides further support for our dynamicupdating hypothesis, demonstrating that changes are indeed updated into the existing object representation.…”

“…After the cue display, the objects (hashes) underwent transitions to become squares, either smoothly or in a reversed order. The occluder that induced amodal completion appeared simultaneously with the final squares used in Lin and Yeh (2011). The critical manipulation lay in the changes between the initial and target displays.…”

“…Note that the object change manipulation in Lin and Yeh (2011) was limited to the time frame around the target presentation; thus, it remains unknown whether such a change can be updated into the existing object representation throughout a whole trial. Because Lin and Yeh changed the representation by adding an occluder in the last frame, the change either could be integrated into the existing object representation, as we suggested (i.e., updating), or could overwrite the existing object representation to rebuild it (i.e., overwriting).…”

“…To further explore whether or not changes in an object's representation affect the allocation of attention, we (Lin & Yeh, 2011) adapted Egly et al's (1994) double-rectangle paradigm and showed that object-based attention can be influenced by an attended and later changed object (i.e., four separated squares were changed into two oblong rectangles via amodal completion). In that study, we presented four small squares in the initial display instead of two rectangles.…”