Spatial priming in ecologically relevant reference frames

Our perception of the world remains stable despite the retinal shifts that occur with each saccade. The role of spatial attention in matching pre-to postsaccadic visual information has been well established, but the role of feature-based attention remains unclear. In this study, we examined the transsaccadic processing of a color pop-out target. Participants made a saccade towards a neutral target and performed a search task on a peripheral array presented once the saccade landed. A similar array was presented just before the saccade and we analyzed what aspect of this preview benefitted the postsaccadic search task. We assessed the preview effect in the spatiotopic and retinotopic reference frames, and the potential transfer of feature selectivity across the saccade. In the first experiment, the target and distractor colors remained identical for the preview and the postsaccadic array and performance improved. The largest benefit was observed at the spatiotopic location. In the second experiment, the target and distractor colors were swapped across the saccade. All responses were slowed but the cost was least at the spatiotopic location. Our results show that the preview attracted spatial attention to the target location, which was then remapped, and suggest that previewed features, specifically colors, were transferred across the saccade. Furthermore, the preview induced a spatiotopic advantage regardless of whether the target switched color or not, suggesting that spatiotopy was established independently of feature processing. Our results support independent priming effects of features versus location and underline the role of featurebased selection in visual stability.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feature-based attention across saccades: Pop-out in color search is spatiotopic

Eymond

Cavanagh

Collins

2018

“…Thus, while the Spatial Congruency Bias seems to be primarily associated with the type of object-position binding that is not updated with motion, it remains unknown whether this non-updated, retinotopic Congruency Bias reflects a variation of the configural coding mechanism associated with visual working memory (Hollingworth & Rasmussen, 2010), or if it reflects a different, third type of binding mechanism. Future research would be needed to test the Spatial Congruency Bias in the presence of multiple-object arrays, scenes, and/or simultaneous dissociation of retinotopic, spatiotopic, and array-centered reference frames (e.g., Tower-Richardi, Leber, & Golomb, 2016). It is also possible that the Spatial Congruency Bias operates on a different level of perceptual discrimination than the Object-Specific Preview Benefit; while the Congruency Bias is only apparent for fine perceptual discrimination tasks and is argued to influence similarity at a perceptual level (Golomb et al, 2014; see discussion below), object specific-preview benefits are typically seen for coarser discriminations (e.g., a set of 7 nameable colors in Hollingworth & Rasmussen) and primarily influence the speed or accuracy of responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binding object features to locations: Does the “spatial congruency bias” update with object movement?

Shafer-Skelton

Kupitz

Golomb

2017

Self Cite

One of the fundamental challenges of visual cognition is how our visual systems combine information about an object's features with its spatial location. A recent phenomenon related to object-location binding, the “Spatial Congruency Bias”, revealed that two objects are more likely to be perceived as having the same identity or features if they appear in the same spatial location, versus if the second object appears in a different location. The Spatial Congruency Bias suggests that irrelevant location information is automatically encoded with and bound to other object properties, biasing their perceptual judgments. Here we further explored this new phenomenon and its role in object-location binding by asking what happens when an object moves to a new location: Is the Spatial Congruency Bias sensitive to spatiotemporal contiguity cues, or does it remain linked to the original object location? Across four experiments, we found that the Spatial Congruency Bias remained strongly linked to the original object location. However, under certain circumstances, e.g. when the first object paused and remained visible for a brief period of time after the movement, the congruency bias was found at both the original location and the updated location. These data suggest that the Spatial Congruency Bias is based more on low-level visual information than spatiotemporal contiguity cues, and reflects a type of object-location binding that is primarily tied to the original object location and may only update to the object's new location if there is time for the features to be re-encoded and re-bound following the movement.

“…To help support all three of these assertions, we briefly review the pertinent subfields of spatial priming along paradigmatic lines to highlight the circumstances that are favorable for a role of response selection in spatial priming. This will lead to the discrimination response hypothesis, which we will test with an ideal data set from an existing study in the intertrial-priming literature on visual search (Tower-Richardi, Leber, & Golomb, 2016). To appreciate the importance of this test, one must keep in mind that this literature has historically favored attentional explanations of spatial priming and has routinely ignored whether response repetition matters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the role of response repetition in spatial priming in visual search

Hilchey

Leber

Pratt

2018

Self Cite

In common "attention" tasks, which require stimulus-identity processing prior to the formation of a speeded key-press response, spatial priming effects depend on response repetition. Typically, the repetition of a stimulus location is advantageous when the prior response repeats, but disadvantageous or inconsequential when the prior response changes. This link between responding and space makes it difficult to draw inferences about attentional bias from two-choice key-press tasks. Instead, the findings are accounted for by episodic retrieval theories, which argue that the response associated with a prior stimulus location is retrieved when a later stimulus occupies its space. This retrieval operation is advantageous if the prior response is needed but not otherwise, which explains typical patterns. This perspective motivated us to evaluate whether spatial priming effects in the visual-search literature depend critically on response repetition. To assess this, we reevaluated a series of experiments recently published by Tower-Richardi, Leber, and Golomb (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 114-132, 2016). Their goal was to determine the reference frame of spatial priming across visual search displays. Reassessment reveals that spatial priming was strongly dependent on response repetition when spatiotopic, retinotopic, and object-centered reference frames were perfectly confounded. However, when eye movements were made to dissociate the spatiotopic and object-centered reference frame from the retinotopic reference frame, spatial priming was positive and unaffected by response repetition. The findings demonstrate that at least two distinct processes factor into spatial priming across visual searches, which occur at different levels of representation.