Object individuation is invariant to attentional diffusion: Changes in the size of the attended region do not interact with object-substitution masking

Abstract

When the human brain is confronted with complex and dynamic visual scenes, two pivotal processes are at play: visual attention (the process of selecting certain aspects of the scene for privileged processing) and object individuation (determining what information belongs to a continuing object over time versus what represents two or more distinct objects). Here we examined whether these processes are independent or whether they interact. Object-substitution masking (OSM) has been used as a tool to examine such questions, however, there is controversy surrounding whether OSM reflects object individuation versus substitution processes. The object-individuation account is agnostic regarding the role of attention, whereas object-substitution theory stipulates a pivotal role for attention. There have been attempts to investigate the role of attention in OSM, but they have been subject to alternative explanations. Here, therefore, we manipulated the size of the attended region, a pure and uncontaminated attentional manipulation, and examined the impact on OSM. Across three experiments, there was no interaction. This refutes the object-substitution theory of OSM. This, in turn, tell us that object-individuation is invariant the distribution of attention.

ERP evidence for temporal independence of set size and object updating in object substitution masking

“…Overall, these results lend support to the idea that visual awareness can be affected independently from selective attention (Goodhew & Edwards, 2016), suggesting that processes following deployment of attention (i.e., object individuation through updating during VWM consolidation) determine whether information is stored in or dropped from memory.…”

“…Although we observed a behavioral interaction in the current study (because we did not constrain for ceiling performance), the ERP data suggest that set size influences spatial attention independently from masking. That is to say, OSM disrupts consolidation of the target item independently and at a later time point from the effects of set size on selective attention (also see, Goodhew & Edwards, 2016).…”

“…This is supported by the finding that the duration of the trailing mask offset and number of distractor items interact to affect behavioral performance (Di Lollo et al, 2000): As the number of distractors increase, there is a decreased likelihood of focused attention on the target item, resulting in increased masking magnitudes. However, more recent studies have failed to find an interaction between attention and masking once accounting for ceiling performance at small set sizes (Argyropoulos, Gellatly, Pilling, & Carter, 2013;Filmer, Mattingley, & Dux, 2014;Goodhew & Edwards, 2016). Successful masking has even been found for a centrally presented target without any distractors present (Filmer, Mattingley & Dux, 2015).…”

Flexibility in resizing attentional breadth: Asymmetrical versus symmetrical attentional contraction and expansion costs depends on context

“…Different attentional breadths (global/broad vs. local/narrow), including both those operationalised via Navon stimuli and related paradigms, have been found to have distinct perceptual and cognitive consequences. In particular, a narrow attentional breadth enhances target detection, the spatial resolution of perception, and both feature and conjunction visual search efficiency (Benso, Turatto, & Gastone, 1998; Goodhew & Edwards, 2016; Goodhew, Lawrence, & Edwards, 2017; Goodhew, Shen, & Edwards, 2016; Greenwood & Parasuraman, 1999), whereas a broad attentional breadth enhances processes such as face identity recognition, perception of positive facial expressions, prioritisation of threatening information, ensemble processing, and change detection (Chong & Treisman, 2005; Gao, Flevaris, Robertson, & Bentin, 2011; Macrae & Lewis, 2002; Notebaert, Crombez, Van Damme, Durnez, & Theeuwes, 2013; Pringle, Irwin, Kramer, & Atchley, 2001; Srinivasan & Hanif, 2010).…”

Breaking Surface Feature Continuity of Previewed Mask Reinstates Object Substitution Masking12

“…They further reported that younger observers were also vulnerable to OSM under full attention if the target contrast was greatly reduced to simulate age-related declines in contrast sensitivity. An increasing number of subsequent studies showed that the interaction between OSM and attentional manipulation is merely a spurious artifact resulting from the ceiling effect (Argyropoulos, Gelletly, Pilling, & Carter, 2013;Filmer, Mattingley, & Dux, 2014;Goodhew & Edwards, 2016;Pilling, Gellatly, Argyropoulos, & Skarratt, 2014), and that OSM is observed even for fully attended and foveated targets if ceiling performance is carefully avoided (Daar & Wilson, 2016;Filmer, Mattingley, & Dux, 2015). manipulations designed to facilitate the establishment of separate object tokens for the target and mask also attenuate OSM.…”