Limits of attentive tracking reveal temporal properties of attention

Abstract

The maximum speed for attentive tracking of targets was measured in three types of (radial) motion displays: ambiguous motion where only attentive tracking produced an impression of direction, apparent motion, and continuous motion. The upper limit for tracking (about 50 deg s-1) was an order of magnitude lower than the maximum speed at which motion can be perceived for some of these stimuli. In all cases but one, the ultimate limit appeared to be one of temporal frequency, 4-8 Hz, not retinal speed or rotation rate. It was argued that this rate reflects the temporal resolution of attention, the maximum rate at which events can be individuated from those that precede or follow them. In one condition, evidence was also found for a speed limit to attentive tracking, a maximum rate at which attention could follow a path around the display.

Exhausting attentional tracking resources with a single fast-moving object

“…Eccentricity was nearly significant (F(1,5)=3.710, p=0.072), with average speed limit for a single target 2.0 rps at 2 deg, 1.92 rps at 4 deg, and 1.74 rps at 9 deg. This apparent decline conflicts with the report of Verstraten, Cavanagh, & Labianca (2000) regarding tracking one bar of a two-cycle circular grating: "an informal test showed… the maximum tracking rate was unaffected by eccentricity" (p.3660). But the nonsignificant decrease we found was small enough that the speed limit is captured much better by revolutions per second than by linear speed.…”

Perception of biological motion in parietal patients

“…Parietal patients usually do not report having difficulties with visual motion, however during pshycophysical testing they show severe impairments in high-level motion tasks (Battelli et al, 2001) such as attentive tracking (Shioiri, Cavanagh, Myamoto, & Yaguchi, 2000;Verstraten, Cavanagh, & Labianca, 2000) or apparent motion perception (James, 1890(James, /1950 and, it has been suggested that these tasks call upon attentional mechanisms (Esterman et al, 2000;Verstraten et al, 2000). It is very well documented in the literature (Duncan et al, 1999;Posner, Walker, Friedrich, & Rafal, 1984;Robertson & Marshall, 1993) that attentional abilities are disrupted in parietal patients.…”

A new account of the neurocognitive foundations of impairments in space, time, and number processing in children with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

“…Battelli et al 2003). This limited temporal resolution of attention is not a failure of low-level vision, but a constraint on our ability to modulate attention over time (Holcombe and Cavanagh 2001;Verstraten et al 2000). Thus, I also hypothesize that DS22q11.2 creates a differential, hypergranular temporal resolution of attention as well.…”