Functional fixedness: The functional significance of delayed disengagement based on attention set.

Abstract

During search, the disengagement of attention is automatically delayed when a fixated but task-irrelevant object shares features of the search target. We examined whether delayed disengagement based on top-down attention set is potentially functional, resulting in additional processing of the fixated item. To accomplish this, we adapted the oculomotor disengagement paradigm. Participants saccaded to a peripheral object of a particular color and responded to the identity of the letter within it. To initiate search participants made a saccade away from an always irrelevant object at the center of the screen that matched or mismatched the target's color and contained a letter that was congruent or incongruent with the target letter. We found that delayed disengagement based on attention set was associated with deeper processing of the center item: a congruency effect between the center letter and peripheral target letter was only observed when the center object's color matched participants' attention set. Results are consistent with the proposal that delayed disengagement based on attention set is functionally significant, automatically encouraging deeper levels of processing of target-like objects that fall within the focus of attention.

Major issues in the study of visual search: Part 2 of “40 Years of Feature Integration: Special Issue in Memory of Anne Treisman”

“…If an irrelevant disk at fixation has the target color, too, it takes a bit longer to move off that disk. Building on earlier work by Wright, Boot, and Brockmole (2015), they show that the original "Functional fixedness" effect generalizes to a range of conditions.…”

Delayed disengagement from irrelevant fixation items: Is it generally functional?

“…

In a circular visual search paradigm, the disengagement of attention is automatically delayed when a fixated but irrelevant center item shares features of the target item. Additionally, if mismatching letters are presented on these items, response times (RTs) are slowed further, while matching letters evoke faster responses (Wright, Boot, & Brockmole, 2015a). This is interpreted as a functional reason of the delayed disengagement effect in terms of deeper processing of the fixation item.

…”

Attention capture, processing speed, and inattentional blindness

“…Most et al (2005) suggested that both bottom-up stimulus properties of objects and top-down goals of the observer influence where attention is allocated, but the latter is the primary determinant of how long attention dwells on an object. More recent work is consistent with this hypothesis, as delayed disengagement of attention has been linked to goal-directed, top-down processes (e.g., Boot & Brockmole, 2010; Blakely, Wright, Dehili, Boot, & Brockmole, 2012; Wright, Boot, & Brockmole, 2015; Wright, Boot, & Jones, 2014). Most et al (2005) further suggested that IB would be more heavily influenced by top-down mechanisms (i.e., the observer’s target representation).…”

“…Consistent with this idea, top-down attention sets determine both the likelihood of noticing an unexpected distractor (Most et al, 2005) and how long attention dwells on a distractor item within fixation (Boot & Brockmole, 2010; Wright et al, 2014). Furthermore, these disengagement delays have been associated with greater depth of processing (Wright et al, 2015), critical to both recognizing and remembering a stimulus. Future work should examine the relationship between delayed attentional disengagement and noticing an unexpected stimulus.…”