Perceptual selectivity for color and form: On the nature of the interference effect.

Abstract

mong the most fundamental issues of visual attention research is the A extent to which visual selection is controlled by properties of the stimulus or by the intentions, goals, and beliefs of the observer (see e.g., Theeuwes, 1994a;Yantis, 1993). Before selective attention operates, preattentive processes perform some basic analyses segmenting the visual field into functional perceptual units. The crucial question is the extent to which the allocation of attention to these perceptual units is under the goaldirected control of the observer (intentions, goals, beliefs) or under stimulus-driven control. Goal-directed control is referred to as top-down selection and is said to occur when the observer intentionally selects only those objects required to perform the task at hand. Stimulus-driven control is referred to as bottom-up selection and is said to occur when attention is captured by the properties of the stimulus, irrespective of the intentions or goals of the observer.Clear evidence for top-down control is provided by Posner (1980;Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980) in tasks in which a central cue (e.g., an arrowhead) indicates the likely target location. Spatially valid cues typically I thank Chip Folk, Tram Neill, and Art Kramer for their helpful comments on a draft of this chapter.

Attentional capture and inhibition (of return): The effect on perceptual sensitivity

“…The present data are in line with earlier claims of Theeuwes (1991Theeuwes ( , 1992Theeuwes ( , 1994Theeuwes ( , 1996Theeuwes ( , 2004, who argued that the preattentive detection of a salient singleton results in a compulsory shift of attention to the location of the salient singleton. Theeuwes argued that this shift is purely bottom-up or stimulus driven and cannot be modulated by top-down attention or behavioral goals.…”

“…Time to find the shape singleton increased when an irrelevant color singleton was present (i.e., one of the circles was red). Theeuwes (1991Theeuwes ( , 1992Theeuwes ( , 1994Theeuwes ( , 1996Theeuwes ( , 2004 explained the increase in search time in conditions in which an irrelevant singleton was present in terms of attentional capture. Because attention was automatically captured by the distractor singleton (the most salient element in the display), it took longer before attention could be redirected to the location of the target singleton and a response could be emitted.…”

“…Indeed, in all of Theeuwes's experiments (1990Theeuwes's experiments ( , 1991Theeuwes's experiments ( , 1992Theeuwes's experiments ( , 1994Theeuwes's experiments ( , 1996Theeuwes et al, 2000;Theeuwes & Godijn, 2002), the target never appeared at the same location as the distractor. The occurrence of capture had to be inferred on the basis of an increase in RT relative to the no-distractor condition (Theeuwes, 1991(Theeuwes, , 1992, the presence of a compatibility effect between the target and the distractor (Theeuwes, 1996), the occurrence of inhibition of return (IOR) at the location of the distractor (Theeuwes & Godijn, 2002), or a decrease in d′ when a distractor was present .…”

Selective and interactive neural correlates of visual dimension changes and response changes

“…A post-selective response stage account of visual dimension weighting (Cohen and Magen, 1999;Cohen and Feintuch, 2002;Feintuch and Cohen, 2002;Cohen and Shoup, 1997;Mortier et al, 2005;Theeuwes et al, in press;Theeuwes, 1992Theeuwes, , 1996 would predict no activation changes in visual input areas to accompany visual dimension changes because perceptual and visual -attentional processes are assumed to remain unchanged. Instead, this account would predict dimension-change-related activation in brain areas supporting response selection and thus an overlap between dimension-change-and response-change-related activation in these areas.…”

“…In more detail, Mü ller and his colleagues (e.g., Mü ller et al, 1995Mü ller et al, , 2003Found and Mü ller, 1996;Krummenacher et al, 2001Krummenacher et al, , 2002a interpreted these effects as arising at a pre-attentive perceptual stage of processing that guides the allocation of focal attention to the target (based on preattentively computed feature difference signals). This interpretation has recently been challenged by Cohen (Cohen and Magen, 1999;Cohen and Feintuch, 2002;Feintuch and Cohen, 2002;Cohen and Shoup, 1997) and Theeuwes (Mortier et al, 2005;Theeuwes et al, in press; see also Theeuwes, 1992Theeuwes, , 1996, who argued that the dimension change effects reflect post-selective response stage processes, which follow the allocation of focal attention to the singleton feature target (with attentional allocation itself being uninfluenced by dimension weighting). The present fMRI study was designed to dissociate perceptual from response-related processes in dimensional weighting in order to broaden the data base for making a decision among the various theoretical alternatives.…”