The Role of Spatial Configuration in Multiple Identity Tracking

Abstract

BackgroundThe simultaneous tracking and identification of multiple moving objects encountered in everyday life requires one to correctly bind identities to objects. In the present study, we investigated the role of spatial configuration made by multiple targets when observers are asked to track multiple moving objects with distinct identities.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe overall spatial configuration made by the targets was manipulated: In the constant condition, the configuration remained as a virtual convex polygon throughout the tracking, and in the collapsed condition, one of the moving targets (critical target) crossed over an edge of the virtual polygon during tracking, destroying it. Identification performance was higher when the configuration remained intact than when it collapsed (Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2). Moreover, destroying the configuration affected the allocation of dynamic attention: the critical target captured more attention than did the other targets. However, observers were worse at identifying the critical target and were more likely to confuse it with the targets that formed the virtual crossed edge (Experiments 3–5). Experiment 6 further showed that the visual system constructs an overall configuration only by using the targets (and not the distractors); identification performance was not affected by whether the distractor violated the spatial configuration.Conclusions/SignificanceIn sum, these results suggest that the visual system may integrate targets (but not distractors) into a spatial configuration during multiple identity tracking, which affects the distribution of dynamic attention and the updating of identity-location binding.

Eye fixation during multiple object attention is based on a representation of discrete spatial foci

“…Dynamic targets (e.g., MOT) may depend on polygonal grouping and show configural effects in either attention or eye movements. For example, during multiple identity tracking of moving targets, both attention and visual working memory have been shown to be affected by whether or not the multiple moving targets retain an overall configuration of a convex polygon 33 34 . One way to reconcile these differences is to consider the possibility that MOT recruits higher order attentional mechanisms for dynamic tracking that our task did not require.…”

Studying visual attention using the multiple object tracking paradigm: A tutorial review

“…Grouping processes during MOT are also affected by identity information (Erlikhman, Keane, Mettler, Horowitz, & Kellman, 2013; see also Zhao et al, 2014). Compared to a condition in which all targets shared the same feature, tracking performance was impaired when identity information divided the objects into two groups, each containing two targets and two distractors.…”

Attentional capture in multiple object tracking

“…However, theories still differ on the exact form of these processes. Most concepts include either a number of tracking mechanisms, examples of such concepts are FLEXes – a flexible number of tracking mechanisms limited by a shared resource ( Alvarez & Franconeri, 2007 ), or multifocal attention ( Cavanagh & Alvarez, 2005 ) or - the preconceptual - sticky indexes of the FINST-theory ( Pylyshyn, 2001 ); other models propose a single process that organizes objects into a virtual polygon ( Yantis, 1992 ; see also Zhao, Gao, Ye, Zhou, Shui, & Shen, 2014 , for evidence in multiple identity tracking) or a single attentional spotlight refreshing visual short term memory ( Oksama & Hyönä, 2008 ) or object files ( Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1992 ). All these models share the common notion that some kind of visual attention (or preconceptual index) is deployed to the task at hand or - as in MOT - to various objects of interest.…”