The Effects of Distractors in Multiple Object Tracking are Modulated by the Similarity of Distractor and Target Features

Feria, Cary S

doi:10.1068/p7053

Cited by 41 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in Feria (2012), the current study not only emphasizes the role of distractors but also the role of distractor features during tracking. Especially interesting is the finding, that the singleton distractor is marked less often compared to other, noncued distractors in stalking conditions compared to the flirty conditions.…”

Section: Underestimated Objects: Distractorsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

All eyes on relevance: strategic allocation of attention as a result of feature-based task demands in multiple object tracking

Brockhoff

Huff

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple object tracking (MOT) plays a fundamental role in processing and interpreting dynamic environments. Regarding the type of information utilized by the observer, recent studies reported evidence for the use of object features in an automatic, low-level manner. By introducing a novel paradigm that allowed us to combine tracking with a noninterfering top-down task, we tested whether a voluntary component can regulate the deployment of attention to taskrelevant features in a selective manner. In four experiments we found conclusive evidence for a task-driven selection mechanism that guides attention during tracking: The observers were able to ignore or prioritize distinct objects. They marked the distinct (cued) object (target/distractor) more or less often than other objects of the same type (targets /distractors)-but only when they had received an identification task that required them to actively process object features (cues) during tracking. These effects are discussed with regard to existing theoretical approaches to attentive tracking, gaze-cue usability as well as attentional readiness, a term that originally stems from research on attention capture and visual search. Our findings indicate that existing theories of MOT need to be adjusted to allow for flexible top-down, voluntary processing during tracking.

show abstract

Section: Underestimated Objects: Distractorsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Concerning top-down effects for object features during tracking, Feria (2012) was the first to study the effects of distinct object features on tracking performance. The utilized distractors were either identical or featurally distinct (in one or two dimensions) from the targets; the number of distractors per trial was varied.…”

Section: Location Features and Motmentioning

confidence: 99%

All eyes on relevance: strategic allocation of attention as a result of feature-based task demands in multiple object tracking

Brockhoff

Huff

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MOT performance also declines as the number of distractors increases (Bettencourt & Somers, 2009;Feria, 2012;Sears & Pylyshyn, 2000;Tombu & Seiffert, 2011). One reason that distractors interfere with tracking the targets is that when a distractor passes near a target, the observer may confuse the distractor with the target (Alvarez & Franconeri, 2007;Bae & Flombaum, 2012;Bettencourt & Somers, 2009;Feria, 2012;Horowitz et al, 2007;Intriligator & Cavanagh, 2001;Iordanescu, Grabowecky, & Suzuki, 2009;Oksama & Hyönä, 2004;Pylyshyn, 2004;Sears & Pylyshyn, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Speed has an effect on multiple-object tracking independently of the number of close encounters between targets and distractors

Feria

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple-object tracking (MOT) studies have shown that tracking ability declines as object speed increases. However, this might be attributed solely to the increased number of times that target and distractor objects usually pass close to each other ("close encounters") when speed is increased, resulting in more target-distractor confusions. The present study investigates whether speed itself affects MOT ability by using displays in which the number of close encounters is held constant across speeds. Observers viewed several pairs of disks, and each pair rotated about the pair's midpoint and, also, about the center of the display at varying speeds. Results showed that even with the number of close encounters held constant across speeds, increased speed impairs tracking performance, and the effect of speed is greater when the number of targets to be tracked is large. Moreover, neither the effect of number of distractors nor the effect of target-distractor distance was dependent on speed, when speed was isolated from the typical concomitant increase in close encounters. These results imply that increased speed does not impair tracking solely by increasing close encounters. Rather, they support the view that speed affects MOT capacity by requiring more attentional resources to track at higher speeds.

show abstract

“…In Experiment 2, we tested this hypothesis by highlighting found targets in a unique color, thereby reducing the cognitive resources required to track them Feria, 2012;Makovski & Jiang, 2009). If the effect of target movement on SSM errors is due to the added demands of tracking moving targets, highlighting found targets should diminish this effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often conduct visual searches in which multiple targets are possible (e.g., medical x-rays can contain multiple abnormalities). In this type of search, observers are more likely to miss a second target after having found a first one (a subsequent search miss). Recent evidence suggests that this effect may be due to a depletion of cognitive resources from tracking the identities and locations of found targets. Given that tracking moving objects is resource-demanding, would finding a moving target further increase the chances of missing a subsequent one? To address this question, we had participants search for one or more targets hidden among distractors. Subsequent search misses were more likely when targets and distractors moved throughout the display than when they remained stationary. However, when found targets were highlighted in a unique color, subsequent search misses were no more likely in moving displays. Together, these results suggest that the effect of movement was likely due to the increased cognitive demands of tracking moving targets. Overall, our findings reveal that activities that involve searching for moving targets (e.g., driving) are more susceptible to subsequent search misses than those that involve searching for stationary targets (e.g., baggage screening).

show abstract

The Effects of Distractors in Multiple Object Tracking are Modulated by the Similarity of Distractor and Target Features

Cited by 41 publications

References 51 publications

All eyes on relevance: strategic allocation of attention as a result of feature-based task demands in multiple object tracking

All eyes on relevance: strategic allocation of attention as a result of feature-based task demands in multiple object tracking

Speed has an effect on multiple-object tracking independently of the number of close encounters between targets and distractors

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About