Attending to multiple objects relies on both feature- and dimension-based control mechanisms: Evidence from human electrophysiology

Töllner, Thomas; Conci, Markus; Müller, Hermann J.; Mazza, Verônica de Azevedo

doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1152-1

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another way of describing these results is that observers could efficiently select either of the two target features, but not both. These findings indicate that the process of preparing top-down biases has a higher capacity than the process of using those biases to select matching information from the visual input (see Töllner et al, 2016 for corroborating findings in enumeration tasks). In all conditions, observers were required to select two target characters and determine whether they were of the same (i.e., both letters or both digits) or different category (i.e., letter and digit).…”

Section: Limitedsupporting

confidence: 55%

The capacity of multiple-target search

Ort

Olivers

2020

Visual Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can individuals look for multiple objects at the same time? A simple question, but answering it has proven difficult. In this review, we describe possible cognitive architectures and their predictions about the capacity of visual search. We broadly distinguish three stages at which limitations may occur: (1) preparation (establishing and maintaining a mental representation of a search target), ( 2) selection (using this mental representation to extract candidate targets from the visual input), and (3) post-selection processing (verifying that the selected information actually is a target). We then review the empirical evidence from various paradigms, together with their strengths and pitfalls. The emerging picture is that multiple target search comes with costs, but the magnitude of this cost differs depending on the processing stage. Selection appears strongly limited, while preparation of multiple search target representations in anticipation of a search is possible with relatively small costs. Finally, there is currently not sufficient information to determine the capacity limitations of post-selection processing. We hope that our review contributes to better targeted research into the mechanisms of multiple-target search. A better understanding of multiple-target search will also contribute to better design of real-life multiple-target search problems, reducing the risk of detrimental search failures.

show abstract

Section: Limitedsupporting

confidence: 55%

The capacity of multiple-target search

Ort

Olivers

2020

Visual Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a strict account in which the primary unit of VWM is integrated items (Luck & Vogel, 1997;Vogel et al, 2001), one may predict that attention in VWM will primarily operate at the level of items, leaving little room for attentional facilitation of specific features that are shared among items. Alternatively, if VWM consists of a hierarchy of representations, with both item-level and dimension-level representations (Bays, Wu, & Husain, 2011;Brady, Konkle, & Alvarez, 2011;Fougnie & Alvarez, 2011;Töllner, Conci, Müller, & Mazza, 2016;Töllner, Mink, & Müller, 2015); then one may expect that attention can operate similarly at distinct levels, depending on the nature of the task at hand. Our data are in line with a mixture of both scenarios-showing that attention can operate qualitatively similarly at both item and dimension levels, while also revealing an additional benefit when attention is directed at two dimensions of a single item (following item cues), compared with a single feature dimension across two items (following dimension cues).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the prioritization of items and feature-dimensions in visual working memory

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention can be directed not only to external sensory inputs, but also to internal sensory representations held within visual working memory (VWM). To date, this phenomenon has been studied predominantly following retrospective cues directing attention to particular items, or their locations in memory. In addition to item-level attentional prioritization, recent studies have shown that selectively attending to feature dimensions in VWM can also improve memory recall performance. However, no study to date has directly compared item-based and dimension-based attention in VWM, nor their neural bases. Here, we compared the benefits of retrospective cues (retro-cues) that were directed either at a multifeature item or at a feature dimension that was shared between two spatially segregated items. Behavioral results revealed qualitatively similar attentional benefits in both recall accuracy and response time, but also showed that cueing benefits were larger after item cues. Concurrent electroencephalogram measurements further revealed a similar attenuation of posterior alpha oscillations following both item and dimension retro-cues when compared with noninformative, neutral retro-cues. We argue that attention can act flexibly to prioritize the most relevant information-at either the item or the dimension level-to optimize ensuing memory-based task performance, and we discuss the implications of the observed commonalities and differences between item-level and dimension-level prioritization in VWM.

show abstract

“…In order to determine generality of these three patterns of performance, we surveyed the past literature on selective enumeration. Selective enumeration tasks have become increasingly common in the enumeration research (e.g., Ester, Drew, Klee, Vogel, & Awh, 2012;Pagano & Mazza, 2012;Tollner, Conci, Muller, & Mazza, 2016;Trick & Enns, 1997b;Watson & Blagrove, 2012) and over the years, close to 30 target/ distractor pairings have been explored in various selective enumeration tasks. Unfortunately, in a number of these studies, it is impossible to assess the distractor costs in selective enumeration because most studies do not manipulate the number of targets and distractor separately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the standard search task predict performance in related tasks for Kanizsa-style illusory contours?

Trick

Hardy

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often assumed that results from standard visual search tasks will be replicated in related tasks but his idea is rarely tested. In a conceptual replication of Li, Cave, and Wolfe ( 2008), we investigated the attentional demands of Kanizsa-style illusory contours using orientation-based search, comparing performance for items defined by real-as compared to illusory contours. After confirming the initial findings in standard search, we tested the same manipulation in multiple-target search, Thornton and Gilden's ( 2007) hybrid standard/multiple-target search, and simple-and selective enumeration. The RT slope differences between real-and illusory contours did not replicate in Thornton and Gilden's task, though they did in multiple-target search and selective enumeration. In fact, absolute differences between real-and illusory contours in RT costs per distractor were 2 -6 times larger than in standard search. To determine whether performance differences between real and illusory contours originated from shape-definition (necessary for distinguishing target shapes from distractors) or unit formation (grouping disconnected parts to define an item/unit), simple and selective enumeration were compared. The differences between real-and illusory-contours only emerged in selective enumeration (enumerating targets among distractors), which suggests the discrepancies between conditions originate from shape definition rather than unit formation processes. There was no evidence of subitizing in selective enumeration for illusory contour figures, but contrary to attention-based theories of enumeration, there was no subitizing for the real-contour controls either. This study contributes to research on illusory contours but it is especially important to the study of search and enumeration.

show abstract

Attending to multiple objects relies on both feature- and dimension-based control mechanisms: Evidence from human electrophysiology

Cited by 5 publications

References 60 publications

The capacity of multiple-target search

The capacity of multiple-target search

Comparing the prioritization of items and feature-dimensions in visual working memory

Does the standard search task predict performance in related tasks for Kanizsa-style illusory contours?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About