Influence of foveal load on the functional visual field

Ikeda, Mitsuo; Takeuchi, Tetsuji

doi:10.3758/bf03199371

Cited by 226 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result points out the possibility that previous reports on the effects of foveal load on visual span size (e.g. Crundall et al, 1999;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Mackworth, 1965;Williams, 1985Williams, , 1988Williams, , 1989 may actually re¯ect at least in part the effects of divided attention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Crundall, Underwood, & Chapman, 1999;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Mackworth, 1965;Williams, 1985Williams, , 1989see Williams, 1988, for a review). Such studies typically employed two concurrent visual tasks, one of them involving the presentation of stimuli in the center of the display, the other involving the presentation of stimuli in the periphery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, participants' visual span was measured in a comparative visual search task in which they had to detect a local match or mismatch between two displays presented side by side. Experiment 1 manipulated the dif®culty of the comparative visual search task by contrasting a mismatch detection task with a substantially more dif®cult match detection task. In Experiment 2, participants were tested in a single-task condition involving only the visual task and a dual-task condition in which they concurrently performed an auditory task. Finally, in Experiment 3, participants performed two dual-task conditions, which differed in the dif®culty of the concurrent auditory task. Both the comparative search task dif®culty (Experiment 1) and the divided attention manipulation (Experiments 2 and 3) produced strong effects on visual span size. q

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contraction of space found in Experiment 6 is reminiscent of what in the applied and fundamental research literature has become known as tunnel vision: the phenomenon that the functional (or useful) field of view shrinks under conditions of cognitive and attentional load (Chan & Courtney, 1993;Holmes, Cohen, Haith, & Morrison, 1977;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Kahneman, Beatty, & Pollack, 1967;Leibowitz & Appelle, 1969;Mackworth, 1965;Miura, 1990;Plainis, Murray, & Chauhan, 2001;Rantanen & Goldberg, 1999;Sanders, 1970;Webster & Haslerud, 1964;Williams, 1982Williams, , 1988Williams, , 1995cf. Lavie & Tsal, 1994).…”

Section: Tunnel Visionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…In turn, those who have looked at systematic biases in peripheral localization did not look at the effect of central task load (see, e.g., Müsseler et al, 1999;van der Heijden et al, 1999; though see Prinzmetal et al, 1998, for a hint of an effect). Moreover, those that did include a loading task often presented it visually, concentrated at fixation, and hence, the shrinkage of the functional field of view may have been due to visual attention being spatially highly focused in the first place, rather than due to cognitive load per se (Chan & Courtney, 1993;Holmes et al, 1977;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Mack, Tang, Tuma, & Kahn, 1992;Plainis et al, 2001;Prinzmetal et al, 1998;Williams, 1982). Interesting in this respect is that J.…”

Section: Tunnel Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Olivers

Humphreys²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detection or discrimination of the second of 2 targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task is often temporarily impaired-a phenomenon termed the attentional blink. This study demonstrated that the attentional blink also affects localization performance. Spatial cues pointed out the possible target positions in a subsequent visual search display. When cues were presented inside an attentional blink (as induced by an RSVP task), the observers' capacity to use them was reduced. This effect was not due to attention being highly focused, to general task switching costs, or to complete unawareness of the cues. Instead, the blink induced a systematic localization bias toward the fovea, reflecting what appears to be spatial compression.

show abstract

“…In contrast, during multipleobject naming, the next object to be named is viewed while the speaker is preparing to name the current object. A number of studies have shown that less information is obtained from an extrafoveal stimulus when the processing load for the foveal stimulus is high than when it is lower (e.g., Henderson & Ferreira, 1990;Ikeda & Takeuchi, 1975;Kennedy, 1998;Liversedge & Findlay, 2000). Because at least some of the processes involved in object naming require processing capacity (e.g., V. S. Ferreira & Pashler, 2002), it is not certain that an extrafoveal object will be processed as thoroughly during multiple-object naming as suggested, for instance, by Pollatsek et al's (1984) results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of Extrafoveal Objects During Multiple-Object Naming.

Morgan¹,

Meyer²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 3 experiments, the authors investigated the extent to which objects that are about to be named are processed prior to fixation. Participants named pairs or triplets of objects. One of the objects, initially seen extrafoveally (the interloper), was replaced by a different object (the target) during the saccade toward it. The interloper-target pairs were identical or unrelated objects or visually and conceptually unrelated objects with homophonous names (e.g., animal-baseball bat). The mean latencies and gaze durations for the targets were shorter in the identity and homophone conditions than in the unrelated condition. This was true when participants viewed a fixation mark until the interloper appeared and when they fixated on another object and prepared to name it while viewing the interloper. These results imply that objects that are about to be named may undergo far-reaching processing, including access to their names, prior to fixation.

show abstract

Influence of foveal load on the functional visual field

Cited by 226 publications

References 23 publications

Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention

Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Processing of Extrafoveal Objects During Multiple-Object Naming.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About