Novelty biases attention and gaze in a surprise trial

Horstmann, Gernot; Herwig, Arvid

doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0995-1

Cited by 61 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results are in line with previous work (Becker & Horstmann, 2011, Experiment 3) that attention is biased towards the salient stimulus even if it is not singled out by feature novelty, and clarify the time course of this effect. Interestingly, the time course of the deployment of gaze is similar to previous studies from the surprise paradigm, when the singleton was the only element in the critical trial with a novel feature (Horstmann & Herwig, 2015), and when nonsalient novel stimuli are presented in the critical trial (Horstmann & Herwig, 2016). The similarity in time course is suggestive of a common origin.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Correspondingly, showed that apparent motion captured attention following pre-critical trials without apparent motion, but not after pre-critical trials where in some displays all items showed apparent motion. In addition to these demonstrations that salience is not sufficient, salience does also not seem to be necessary to attract attention: Horstmann and Herwig (2016) demonstrated that the eyes are attracted by a novel feature even when the feature was not a singleton in the display.…”

Section: Evidence From Unexpected Singletonsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

Horstmann

Becker

Ernst

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of characteristics of the visual system and of the visual stimulus are invoked to explain involuntary control of attention, including goals, novelty, and perceptual salience. The present experiment tested perceptual salience on a surprise trial, that is, on its unannounced first presentation following trials lacking any salient items, thus eliminating possible confounds by current goals. Moreover, the salient item's location was not singled out by a novel feature, thus eliminating a possible confound by novelty in directing attention. Eye tracking was used to measure involuntary attention. Results show a prioritization of the salient item. However, contrary to predictions of prominent neuro-computational and psychological salience models, prioritization was not fast-acting. Rather the observers' gaze was attracted only as the second fixation on average or later (depending on condition) and with a latency of more than 500 ms on average. These results support the general proposition that salience can control attention. However, contrary to most salience models, the present results indicate that salience changes attentional priority only in novel environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Evidence From Unexpected Singletonsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

Horstmann

Becker

Ernst

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specific behavioral evidence for the attentional shift caused by surprising events was obtained in a series of eye‐tracking studies which found that surprising stimuli attract gaze in a visual search task (Horstmann & Herwig, , ; see Horstmann, , for a review of the surprise‐attention link). The average latency of the first gaze contact with the surprising stimulus occurred around 400 ms, which is consistent with the time course of detection deficits caused by surprising events in a rapid serial visual presentation task (e.g.…”

Section: The Effects Of Surprisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1; see Horstmann, ). When multiple objects with a schema‐discrepant feature are presented, the preference for this feature may extend over multiple fixations (Horstmann & Herwig, ).…”

Section: The Effects Of Surprisementioning

confidence: 99%

The Cognitive‐Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence

Reisenzein

Horstmann

Schützwohl

2017

Topics in Cognitive Science

Self Cite

128

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schützwohl (1997) is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected (schema-discrepant) events and its intensity is determined by the degree if schema-discrepancy, whereas the novelty and the valence of the eliciting events probably do not have an independent effect. Unexpected events cause an automatic interruption of ongoing mental processes that is followed by an attentional shift and attentional binding to the events, which is often followed by causal and other event analysis processes and by schema revision. The facial expression of surprise postulated by evolutionary emotion psychologists has been found to occur rarely in surprise, for as yet unknown reasons. A physiological orienting response marked by skin conductance increase, heart rate deceleration, and pupil dilation has been observed to occur regularly in the standard version of the repetition-change paradigm of surprise induction, but the specificity of these reactions as indicators of surprise is controversial. There is indirect evidence for the assumption that the feeling of surprise consists of the direct awareness of the schema-discrepancy signal, but this feeling, or at least the self-report of surprise, is also influenced by experienced interference. In contrast, facial feedback probably does contribute substantially to the feeling of surprise and the evidence for the hypothesis that surprise is affected by the difficulty of explaining an unexpected event is, in our view, inconclusive. Regardless of how the surprise feeling is constituted, there is evidence that it has both motivational and informational effects. Finally, the prediction failure implied by unexpected events sometimes causes a negative feeling, but there is no convincing evidence that this is always the case, and we argue that even if it were so, this would not be a sufficient reason for regarding this feeling as a component, rather than as an effect of surprise.

show abstract

“…As a first objective, we aimed to determine whether the high level of endogenous alert, that we assume to occur in the optimal time of day according to the individual’s chronotype, improves performance in both a rather monotonous task that is supposed to activate the vigilant attentional network (the PVT), and in a conflict demanding task that requires sustained attention throughout the task (the flanker task). Additionally, as attention is thought to be biased to novel stimulus and/or locations 27 , 28 , we assessed whether synchrony effects in the two aforementioned tasks can be modulated by task-related novelty, that is, first-experience-with-task occurring in the first session. It might be that first-experience-with-task increases alerting levels, compensating the low endogenous alertness when participants complete the tasks for the first time at their non-optimal time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of chronotype in the interaction between the alerting and the executive control networks

Martínez-Pérez

Palmero

Campoy

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronotype refers to the time of day preferred by individuals to perform daily activities according to their circadian rhythm. We asked whether synchrony effects, that is, the difference in performance between the optimal and non-optimal time of day as a function of chronotype, are observed in two tasks that differently involve the endogenous component of the alerting network, the psychomotor visual task (PVT) and the flanker task. From an initial sample of 132 students that filled in the Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), 18 were classified as Morning-types and 16 as Evening-types. Evening-types showed synchrony effects in both tasks, whereas Morning-types failed to show synchrony effects in the flanker task and when the PVT was first performed at the non-optimal time of day. Thus, Morning-types might have seen increased their vigilant attention at their non-optimal time of day due to the cognitive demands of the flanker task and to the novelty with the PVT. Phasic alerting generated by alerting tones increased conflict score in the flanker task, but time of day did not modulate the congruence effect. Chronotype determines vigilant attention more decisively in Evening-types than in Morning-types individuals. Also, exogenous but not endogenous alerting exerts a deleterious effect on conflict resolution.

show abstract

Novelty biases attention and gaze in a surprise trial

Cited by 61 publications

References 35 publications

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

The Cognitive‐Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence

The role of chronotype in the interaction between the alerting and the executive control networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About