Limits in feature-based attention to multiple colors

Liu, Taosheng; Jigo, Michael

doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1390-x

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we again found that reward differentially interacted with physical salience (for targets appearing in the coherent vs. random dot field), when preparatory attention was not linked to a particular feature. Our manipulation of attending to both dot fields should weaken the influence of preparatory attention, as supported by previous studies employing multiple attentional templates (Houtkamp & Roelfsema, 2008 ; Stroud, Menneer, Cave, Donnelly, & Rayner, 2011 ; Liu, Becker, & Jigo, 2013 ; Liu & Jigo, 2017 ). However, top-down biasing to a particular feature in this task could be triggered by the speed-up event, which is analogous to a reactive mechanism of cognitive control, where task goals are activated by transient events as needed, rather than sustained in a preparatory state (Braver, 2012 ).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 77%

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

Gong

Liu

2018

Journal of Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A visual feature associated with reward can capture attention when it is neither physically salient nor task relevant. Although such findings suggest that reward acts similarly as physical salience, it is unknown whether reward works independently or interactively with physical salience to modulate attentional priority. Here, we first trained participants to associate two motion directions with high and low reward. During the test, we presented superimposed but perceptually separable stimuli that consisted of coherently and randomly moving dot fields, while manipulating the physical salience (low vs. high contrast) and reward history (low vs. high reward) of the coherent stimulus. Participants were instructed to identify speed-up targets on the coherent or random stimulus. We found that reward improved target detection in the coherent stimulus regardless of the physical contrast, whereas reward disrupted target detection in the random stimulus only when the coherent stimulus was of high contrast. Our findings thus suggest that goal-directed, feature-specific selection determines the pattern of interaction between reward and physical salience, such that they contribute either independently or interactively to attentional priority. We propose two possible mechanisms that can account for the intricate patterns of influence among multiple sources of priority.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 77%

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

Gong

Liu

2018

Journal of Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding suggests that it was not possible for participants to allocate memory resources using three attentional goals and instead treated all cued items as high priority. Taken together, the results suggest that prioritization of VSTM resources via top-down attention is limited to only two levels, consistent with past work that demonstrating that at least two separate attentional control sets are possible (Adamo et al, 2008(Adamo et al, , 2010Liu, Becker, & Jigo, 2013;Liu & Jigo, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Addressing properties and limitations of flexible resource allocation in visual short-term memory

Ha¹,

Kj²,

Emrich³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although recent evidence suggests that visual short-term memory is a continuous resource, little is known about how flexibly this resource can be allocated. The current study used a continuous report procedure and attentional prioritization via probabilistic spatial cues to address three unknown properties of a flexible continuous resource. The first experiment measured multiple responses from each trial to assess whether multiple items could simultaneously be prioritized. Second, since past work has shown that participants could prioritize VSTM representations according to two states of attentional priority, we examined whether participants could maintain three levels of priority. Lastly, we examined whether flexible allocation is possible when the prioritization cues are provided after initial encoding (i.e. a retro-cue). The results demonstrated that when participants had to recall multiple items on each trial, there were clear differences in response precision between cued and uncued items; however, two items of the same category were not always stored with equal precision. When three attentional priority levels were provided, participants’ precision was no different between high- and medium-priority, but significantly improved over low priority items, suggesting participants did not assign different memory weights to the two higher-priority conditions. When prioritization was performed via retro-cues, participants could re-allocate memory resources, but not when more than one item was to be prioritized, suggesting limitations in the flexible allocation of resources after initial encoding. Together, the results provide evidence of a VSTM resource that is flexibly, but variably, allocated using up to two attentionally guided priority goals, primarily during encoding.

show abstract

“…Second, in line with task switching costs, more generally (Altmann & Gray, 2008;Monsell, 2003), switching the target template can be costly in visual search (Wolfe, Horowitz , Kenner, Hyle, & Vasan, 2004). There are costs associated with switching between two colors (Ort, Fahrenfort, & Olivers, 2017), but these are fairly small (Grubert & Eimer, 2014;Liu & Jigo, 2017) and, as noted above, it could be that two color templates can be active at the same time. The cost is more dramatic in the conjunction search (Wolfe et al, 2004).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance and selection history in hybrid foraging visual search

Wolfe

Cain

Aizenman

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Hybrid Foraging tasks, observers search for multiple instances of several types of target. Collecting all the dirty laundry and kitchenware out of a child's room would be a real-world example. How are such foraging episodes structured? A series of four experiments shows that selection of one item from the display makes it more likely that the next item will be of the same type. This pattern holds if the targets are defined by basic features like color and shape but not if they are defined by their identity (e.g., the letters p & d). Additionally, switching between target types during search is expensive in time, with longer response times between successive selections if the target type changes than if they are the same. Finally, the decision to leave a screen/patch for the next screen in these foraging tasks is imperfectly consistent with the predictions of optimal foraging theory. The results of these hybrid foraging studies cast new light on the ways in which prior selection history guides subsequent visual search in general.

show abstract

Limits in feature-based attention to multiple colors

Cited by 22 publications

References 58 publications

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

Addressing properties and limitations of flexible resource allocation in visual short-term memory

Guidance and selection history in hybrid foraging visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About