The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection.

Abstract

Even though it is undisputed that prior information regarding the location of a target affects visual selection, the issue of whether information regarding nonspatial features, such as color and shape, has similar effects has been a matter of debate since the early 1980s. In the study described in this article, measures derived from signal detection theory were used to show that perceptual sensitivity is affected by a top-down set for spatial information but not by a top-down set for nonspatial information. This indicates that knowing where the target singleton is affects perceptual selectivity but that knowing what it is does not help selectivity. Furthermore, perceptual sensitivity can be enhanced by nonspatial features, but only through a process related to bottom-up priming. These findings have important implications for models of visual selection.

Cross-modal associations between vision, touch, and audition influence visual search through top-down attention, not bottom-up capture

“…Although tactile cuing produced efficient search for some spatial frequencies, the results of Experiment 3 demonstrated that visual cues produced more efficient search slopes than did tactile cues. This may have occurred because the visual cue provided a more accurate or more detailed representation of the target or may have been a result of visual priming (Theeuwes, Reimann, & Mortier, 2006;Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2007;.…”

“…In this experiment, prior to the search display, participants were presented with the Gabor that would appear in the target ring as a cue. Previous studies have shown that this improved visual selection in a visual search task when using a color cue (Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2007. Participants completed the tactile cue condition from Experiment 2 as a comparison with the visual cue condition.…”

“…When cues were present, they always matched the spatial frequency of the Gabor inside the target ring, and each individual's own tactile-visual and visual-auditory matching relationships from Experiment 1 were used. Critically, participants could perform the search task without cues to the Gabor within the target ring (see also a similar methodology used in Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2007, Theeuwes & van der Burg, 2008, Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2011. Participants were informed that these cues were always valid and were told to use the information to facilitate their search for the target ring.…”

“…It was displayed centrally for 1,000 ms during the cue period, followed by a fixation cross for 1,000 ms. The visual cue was removed from the screen to avoid any apparent motion from the cue to the Gabor patch within the target ring (see Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2007). Participants were informed that they would be presented with 100 % valid cues and were told to use this to speed their search.…”

Word cues affect detection but not localization responses

“…Evidence for the former stems from studies in which the amount of information available about the target identity in singleton search tasks was manipulated (Egeth, 1977;Meeter & Theeuwes, 2006;Müller, Heller, & Ziegler, 1995;Müller, Reimann, & Krummenacher, 2003;Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2007;Treisman, 1988). A typical finding is that search is faster when observers know the identity of the target dimension within a block of trials than when the target dimension changes from trial to trial; this is referred to as a cross-dimensional cost.…”