Moving attention through visual space.

“…6 It is clear that the general framework for viewing detection experiments outlined in this article is quite con-6 While this article has been in press much of the work outlined here has been accomplished. For a discussion of movements of covert attention see Shulman, Remington, and McLean (1979). A broader treatment of the relationship between overt and covert attention movements may be found in Posner (1980).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention and the detection of signals.

Posner¹,

Snyder²,

Davidson³

1980

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

3,393

127

2,430

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYDetection of a visual signal requires information to reach a system capable of eliciting arbitrary responses required by the experimenter. Detection latencies are reduced when subjects receive a cue that indicates where in the visual field the signal will occur. This shift in efficiency appears to be due to an alignment (orienting) of the central attentional system with the pathways to be activated by the visual input.It would also be possible to describe these results as being due to a reduced criterion at the expected target position. However, this description ignores important constraints about the way in which expectancy improves performance. First, when subjects are cued on each trial, they show stronger expectancy effects than when a probable position is held constant for a block, indicating the active nature of the expectancy. Second, while information on spatial position improves performance, information on the form of the stimulus does not. Third, expectancy may lead to improvements in latency without a reduction in accuracy. Fourth, there appears to be little ability to lower the criterion at two positions that are not spatially contiguous.A framework involving the employment of a limited-capacity attentional mechanism seems to capture these constraints better than the more general language of criterion setting. Using this framework, we find that attention shifts are not closely related to the saccadic eye movement system. For luminance detection the retina appears to be equipotential with respect to attention shifts, since costs to unexpected stimuli are similar whether foveal or peripheral. These results appear to provide an important model system for the study of the relationship between attention and the structure of the visual system.Detecting the presence of a clear signal controlling our awareness of environmental in an otherwise noise-free environment is events. Although there are a number of emprobably the simplest perceptual act of which pirical approaches to the study of detection, the human is capable. For this reason it may most have not clearly separated between atserve as an ideal model task for investigating tentional factors and sensory factors and are the role of sensory and attentional factors in thus incapable of providing an analysis of the relationship between the two. The classical psychophysical approach to the use of University of Oregon. Portions of the data were near-threshold signals (e.g., Hecht, Schlaer, adapted from Chronometrk Explorations of Mind & Pirenne, 1942). This approach has been (Posner, 1978). Parts of these experiments were concerned with such stimulus factors as inrdllV 116 Psychonomk Society> November tensity, duration, wavelength, and sensory Reqests for reprints should be sent to Michael I. organismic factors such as the degree of dark Posner, Psychology Department, University of Ore-adaptation, retinal position of the stimulus, gon, Eugene, Oregon 97403. and so on. Evidence that a signal has been

show abstract

“…First, there is evidence to suggest that attention tends to travel in an analog manner and that locations in the path of this movement are attended and locations off the path are not attended (e.g., O'Donnell & Pratt, 1996;Pratt & Abrams, 1994;Shulman, Remington, & McLean, 1979;Tipper, Lortie, & Baylis, 1992). For example, O'Donnell and Pratt found that cuing a more eccentric location yielded inhibition at a less eccentric target location only if the less eccentric target location was along the path that attention traveled to reach the cued location.…”

Section: Response Latencies At Uncued Locationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.

Pratt¹,

Spalek²,

Bradshaw³

1999

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

110

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return refers to the finding that response latencies are longer for targets appearing at previously attended (cued) locations than at novel (uncued) locations. The present research was designed to examine the pattern of detection latencies that occurred for targets appearing at various uncued locations. The first 2 experiments showed that responses were fastest when the target occurred at a location directly opposite the cue. Experiment 3 showed that latencies were related to the angle between the target and the direction in which attention was being oriented. Experiments 4 and 5 showed that manipulating the direction of attentional orientation affected inhibition of return. Overall, the results suggest that inhibition of return may be due to the difference between orienting attention to locations along the path of attention versus orienting attention to those off the path of attention.

show abstract

Moving attention through visual space.

Cited by 254 publications

References 5 publications

Time course of visual extrapolation accuracy

Time course of visual extrapolation accuracy

Attention and the detection of signals.

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About