Isoluminant motion onset captures attention

Abstract

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.

Seeing while acting: hand movements can modulate attentional capture by motion onset

“…The present study examined the effect of the observer's mode of action on the attentional prioritization of visual items on the basis of abrupt motion onset (Abrams & Christ, 2003;Al-Aidroos et al, 2010;Franconeri & Simons, 2003;Guo et al, 2010). Motivated by the common-coding theoretical account of action and perceptual processes (Hommel et al, 2001;Müsseler, 1999;Prinz, 1997), we hypothesized that preparing an action would decrease the availability of features belonging to the prepared action for visual processes, thus reducing attentional capture by an irrelevant motion that is similar to the Fig.…”

“…In the present experiments, we employed a version of the attentional-capture-by-motion-onset paradigm (Abrams & Christ, 2003;Al-Aidroos et al, 2010;Franconeri & Simons, 2003;Guo et al, 2010) in which subjects searched for a target letter-with two possible identities-among a set size of four items (i.e., one target and three distractors). The critical addition to the paradigm was that the responses were hand movements (via the computer mouse) along either a horizontal or vertical predetermined axis.…”

“…Finding facilitation at a short SOA, inhibition at a long SOA, and insensitivity to the number of distractors are all indications of involuntary attentional capture (e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984;Yantis & Jonides, 1984). Thus, Abrams and Christ concluded that motion onset cues are capable of generating attentional capture (see also Franconeri & Simons, 2003;Guo et al, 2010).…”

“…The prioritization of information, which is primarily based on stimulus properties and is independent of any top-down contributions from the observer's goals and actions, is typically referred to as attentional capture. The present study examines an extremely robust form of attentional capture caused by the abrupt onset of motion (Abrams & Christ, 2003;Al-Aidroos, Guo, & Pratt, 2010;Franconeri & Simons, 2003;Guo, Abrams, Moscovitch, & Pratt, 2010).…”

Magnocellular and parvocellular influences on reflexive attention

“…These reflexive shifts of attention can briefly enhance visual processing with little if any volitional effort from the observer. Events with high feature salience, such as an abruptly appearing object (Jonides, 1981, Yantis and Jonides, 1984; Yantis and Hillstrom, 1994;), an abrupt luminance change (Posner, 1980; Atchley et al, 2000; Snowden, 2002; Theeuwes, 1995), or the onset of motion (Abrams & Christ, 2003; Folk et al, 1994; Guo et al, 2010) have been shown to capture attention and bias visual processing.…”