Perceptual Basis of Redundancy Gains in Visual Pop-out Search

Töllner, Thomas; Zehetleitner, Michael; Krummenacher, Joseph; Müller, Hermann J.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21422

Cited by 43 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The dual-feature target N2pc emerged at the same time and was initially equal in size to the sum of the two N2pc components to single-feature targets and then became larger than the summed single-feature N2pc components. These observations suggest that during the early stage of target selection, attention was deployed independently to each of the two target colours, with both colour selection processes generating separate N2pc components that combined additively during the selection of dual-feature targets (see also Töllner, Zehetleitner, Krummenacher, & Müller, 2011, for related N2pc evidence from a task where participants had to detect colour singletons, orientation singletons, or redundantly defined targets that were singletons in both dimensions). Critically, the subsequent emergence of a superadditive N2pc to dual-feature targets in Experiment 2 mirrors the superadditive target N2pc found in Experiment 1, despite the fact that objects with two or one target colours now both required a response.…”

Section: Discussion Of Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 92%

The control of attentional target selection in a colour/colour conjunction task

Berggren

Eimer

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the time course of attentional object selection processes in visual search tasks where targets are defined by a combination of features from the same dimension, we measured the N2pc component as an electrophysiological marker of attentional object selection during colour/ colour conjunction search. In Experiment 1, participants searched for targets defined by a combination of two colours, while ignoring distractor objects that matched only one of these colours. Reliable N2pc components were triggered by targets and also by partially matching distractors, even when these distractors were accompanied by a target in the same display. The target N2pc was initially equal in size to the sum of the two N2pc components to the two different types of partially matching distractors and became superadditive from approximately 250 ms after search display onset. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the superadditivity of the target N2pc was not due to a selective disengagement of attention from task-irrelevant partially matching distractors. These results indicate that attention was initially deployed separately and in parallel to all target-matching colours, before attentional allocation processes became sensitive to the presence of both matching colours within the same object. They suggest that attention can be controlled simultaneously and independently by multiple features from the same dimension and that feature-guided attentional selection processes operate in parallel for different target-matching objects in the visual field.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 92%

The control of attentional target selection in a colour/colour conjunction task

Berggren

Eimer

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Usually, reaction time (RT) for target-present responses decreases with an increasing number of targets. This redundancy gain has been observed in standard visual search paradigms (e.g., Töllner, Zehetleitner, Krummenacher, & Müller, 2011), simple RT tasks (e.g., Fischer & Miller, 2008), and go/no-go tasks (e.g., Mordkoff & Danek, 2011). Traditionally, redundancy gain has been explained by statistical facilitation resulting from parallel and independent processing of redundant targets (race model; Raab, 1962).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Redundancy gain for semantic features

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a go/no-go experiment, semantic redundancy gain was assessed for responses to single written words. Specifically, we asked participants to respond only to words whose meaning matched at least one semantic target featurethat is, the target category (e.g., animal), the target color (e.g., gray), or both. On redundant-target trials, the word (e.g., elephant) matched both semantic target features (i.e., gray and animal). On single-target trials, the word (e.g., beaver) matched one target feature (i.e., animal) and a nontarget feature (i.e., brown). We observed shorter reaction times in the redundant-target condition than in the faster single-target condition. Hence, the present study provides the first evidence that redundancy gain is not limited to responses to redundant proximal stimulus features but can also be observed for responses to semantic feature information.

show abstract

“…When computed relative to stimulus onset (i.e., stimulus-locked LRP), the LRP onset marks the start of effector-specific motor activation after the completion of response-selection processes (27). By contrast, when computed relative to response onset (i.e., response-locked LRP), the timing of the LRP onset indexes the time required to execute the motor response (14,28).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 1, we analyzed the PCN together with both stimulus-and response-locked LRPs to dissociate preattentive perceptual, postselective perceptual plus response selection, and response execution processes as a function of the visual-search task set (14). Because we used the same physical pop-out stimuli for all four task conditions, we expected the PCN timing and activation, indexing focal-attentional selection, to be immune to task-set manipulations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we analyzed response-locked LRPs *This component traditionally has been referred to as "N2-posterior-contralateral" (N2pc). However, based on recent evidence (13,14) that underscores the independence of this component in both timing and activation from the nonlateralized N2, we prefer the term "PCN" (instead of "N2pc") to avoid misleading associations or interpretations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How the speed of motor-response decisions, but not focal-attentional selection, differs as a function of task set and target prevalence

Töllner

Rangelov

Müller

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decades, the visual-search paradigm has provided a powerful test bed for competing theories of visual selective attention. However, the information required to decide upon the correct motor response differs fundamentally across experimental studies, being based, for example, on the presence, spatial location, or identity of the target item. This variability raises the question as to whether estimates of the time taken for (i) focalattentional selection, (ii) deciding on the motor response, and (iii) response execution generalize across search studies or are specific to the demands of a particular task set. To examine this issue, we presented physically identical stimulus material in four different search task conditions, requiring target localization, detection, discrimination, or compound responses, and combined mental chronometry with two specific electroencephalographic brain responses that are directly linkable to either preattentive or postselective levels of visual processing. Behaviorally, reactions were fastest for localization, slowest for compound responses, and of intermediate speed for detection and discrimination responses. At the electroencephalographic level, this effect of task type manifested in the timing of the stimulus-and response-locked lateralized readiness potential (indexing motor-response decisions), but not posterior contralateral negativity (indexing focal-attentional selection), component. This result demonstrates that only the stage of preattentive visual coding generalizes across task settings, whereas processes that follow focal target selection are dependent on the nature of the task. Consequently, this task set-specific pattern has fundamental implications for all types of experimental paradigms, within and beyond visual search, that require humans to generate motor responses on the basis of external sensory stimulation.decision making | stimulus-response translation | visual attention D eciding upon the appropriate motor (e.g., vocal, manual) response is one of the most ubiquitous tasks posed by everyday life. In most instances, such decisions are determined by relevant or salient sensory (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile) information extracted from the multitude of stimuli present in the external world by selective-attention mechanisms (1, 2). Over the last century, a remarkable variety of experimental paradigms (e.g., visual search, dual task, task switching) has been developed to approximate such decision-making processes in the laboratory. One prominent example, which has provided a powerful test bed for competing theories of visual selective attention (3-5), is visual search. In the standard visual-search paradigm, humans or other primates are presented with a display that can contain a target item among a variable number of distractor items, with reaction times (RT) to the target and response accuracy providing the critical performance measures. Interestingly, however, when study designs are compared in terms of their underlying task settings [i.e., stimul...

show abstract

Perceptual Basis of Redundancy Gains in Visual Pop-out Search

Cited by 43 publications

References 60 publications

The control of attentional target selection in a colour/colour conjunction task

The control of attentional target selection in a colour/colour conjunction task

Redundancy gain for semantic features

How the speed of motor-response decisions, but not focal-attentional selection, differs as a function of task set and target prevalence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About