The attentional effects of single cues and color singletons on visual sensitivity.

White, Alex; Lunau, Rasmus; Carrasco, Marisa

doi:10.1037/a0033775

Cited by 25 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 97 publications

(173 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That way, the cueing costs were cancelled in the onset-color condition, resulting in zero cueing effect, whereas cueing costs persisted in the coloronset condition. As mentioned earlier, larger attentional capture by onset cues may result from their larger saliency (Folk & Remington, 2015;Lamy & Egeth, 2003;White, Lunau, & Carrasco, 2014).…”

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The fact that these cues elicited zero cueing effects instead of cueing costs can be accounted for by different speeds of disengagement. Onset cues might have captured attention more than the color cues because onsets are more salient than other types of singletons (Belopolsky et al, 2010;Folk & Remington, 2015;Lamy & Egeth, 2003;White, Lunau, & Carrasco, 2014). Hence, disengagement might have been slower, and suppression had not yet been present when the color targets appeared.…”

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Schönhammer

Kerzel

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral cues reduce reaction times (RTs) to targets at the cued location with short cue-target SOAs (cueing benefits) but increase RTs at long SOAs (cueing costs or inhibition of return). In detection tasks, cueing costs occur at shorter SOAs and are larger compared with identification tasks. To account for effects of task, detection cost theory claims that the integration of cue and target into an object file makes it more difficult to detect the target as a new event, which is the principal task-requirement in detection tasks. The integration of cue and target is expected to increase when cue and target are similar. We provided evidence for detection cost theory in the modified spatial cueing paradigm. Two types of cues (onset, color) were paired with two types of targets (onset, color) in separate blocks of trials. In the identification task, we found cueing benefits with matching (i.e., similar) cue-target pairs (onset-onset, color-color) and no cueing effects with nonmatching cue-target pairs (onset-color, color-onset), which replicates previous work. In the detection task, cueing effects with matching cues were reduced and even turned into cueing costs for onset cues with onset targets, suggesting that cue-target integration made it more difficult to detect targets at the cued location as new events. In contrast, the results for nonmatching cue-target pairs were not affected by task. Furthermore, the pattern of false alarms in the detection task provides a measure of similarity that may explain the size of cueing benefits and costs.

show abstract

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Schönhammer

Kerzel

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At one extreme is the suggestion of full top-down control: Observers can select a feature dimension and singleton distractors on non-attended dimensions are ineffective [32]. The opposite view holds that the initial selection of visual information is stimulus-driven and independent of the attentional setting [33,34], at least for some feature dimensions [35]; other views are between these extremes [36]. This debate is, however, largely about the initial selection of visual information (often using feature singletons as distractors) and there is consensus that top-down selection can eventually override stimulus-driven effects [37,38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration Trumps Selection in Object Recognition

Saarela

Landy

2015

Current Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Finding and recognizing objects is a fundamental task of vision. Objects can be defined by several “cues” (color, luminance, texture etc.), and humans can integrate sensory cues to improve detection and recognition [1–3]. Cortical mechanisms fuse information from multiple cues [4], and shape-selective neural mechanisms can display cue-invariance by responding to a given shape independent of the visual cue defining it [5–8]. Selective attention, in contrast, improves recognition by isolating a subset of the visual information [9]. Humans can select single features (red or vertical) within a perceptual dimension (color or orientation), giving faster and more accurate responses to items having the attended feature [10,11]. Attention elevates neural responses and sharpens neural tuning to the attended feature, as shown by studies in psychophysics and modeling [11,12], imaging [13–16], and single-cell and neural population recordings [17,18]. Besides single features, attention can select whole objects [19–21]. Objects are among the suggested “units” of attention because attention to a single feature of an object causes the selection of all of its features [19–21]. Here, we pit integration against attentional selection in object recognition. We find, first, that humans can integrate information near-optimally from several perceptual dimensions (color, texture, luminance) to improve recognition. They cannot, however, isolate a single dimension even when the other dimensions provide task-irrelevant, potentially conflicting information. For object recognition, it appears that there is mandatory integration of information from multiple dimensions of visual experience. The advantage afforded by this integration, however, comes at the expense of attentional selection.

show abstract

“…Because the double cue draws transient attention to the two spatial loci where the potential target is to appear, conceivably bottom-up divided attention 5 is engaged to enhance processing at these loci (Bay & Wyble, 2014; Sergent et al, 2013; Solomon, 2004; White, Lunau, & Carrasco, 2014), leading to a behavioral alerting effect. However, the alerting effect in prior ANT research cannot always be interpreted as reflecting purely bottom-up processes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity of phasic alertness: Evidence for a three-component model of visual cueing

Lin

Lü

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The automaticity of phasic alertness is investigated using the attention network test. Results show that the cueing effect from the alerting cue—double cue—is strongly enhanced by the task relevance of visual cues, as determined by the informativeness of the orienting cue—single cue—that is being mixed (80% vs. 50% valid in predicting where the target will appear). Counterintuitively, the cueing effect from the alerting cue can be negatively affected by its visibility, such that masking the cue from awareness can reveal a cueing effect that is otherwise absent when the cue is visible. Evidently, top-down influences—in the form of contextual relevance and cue awareness—can have opposite influences on the cueing effect by the alerting cue. These findings lead us to the view that a visual cue can engage three components of attention—orienting, alerting, and inhibition—to determine the behavioral cueing effect. We propose that phasic alertness, particularly in the form of specific response readiness, is regulated by both internal, top-down expectation and external, bottom-up stimulus properties. In contrast to some existing views, we advance the perspective that phasic alertness is strongly tied to temporal orienting, attentional capture, and spatial orienting. Finally, we discuss how translating attention research to clinical applications would benefit from an improved ability to measure attention. To this end, controlling the degree of intraindividual variability in the attentional components and improving the precision of the measurement tools may prove vital.

show abstract

The attentional effects of single cues and color singletons on visual sensitivity.

Cited by 25 publications

References 97 publications

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Integration Trumps Selection in Object Recognition

Automaticity of phasic alertness: Evidence for a three-component model of visual cueing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About