Object-centred orienting of attention

Abstract

In the present study two experiments are reported in which the subjects were presented on a computer screen with a two-dimensional line drawing that is perceived as a three-dimensionalobject (i.e. a cube). The cube could be seen as stationary, as rotating about the y-axis (Experiment 1A), or as rotating about the x-axis (Experiment 1B). The subject's attention was directed by a visual precue to a vertex of the cube. As the cube rotated, the precued location moved in viewer-centred co-ordinatesm, but the local feature of the cube that had been precued (i.e. a given vertex) did not move in object-centred co-ordinates. The imperative stimulus was presented at the precued location (valid trials) or at an uncued location (invalid trials). Precued and uncued locations were determined in object-centred coordinates. The subjects were required to signal detection of the imperative stimulus by pressing the space bar on the computer keyboard. There were also control conditions in which the procedure was identical, but the cube was not visible. When the cube was visible, valid trials were faster than invalid trials, regardless of whether it was seen as stationary or rotating. It was concluded that the subjects could allocate spatial attention in object-centred co-ordinates. There wer also indications that responses for invalid trials were faster when the imperative stimulus was presented on the same face as the precue than when it was presented on the opposite face

Switching or sharing in dual-task line-length discrimination?

“…In conclusion, we note that the question of sharing versus switching is also of interest with respect to the general division between capacity theories and spotlight theories of spatial attention (e.g., Shaw, 1978;Umilta, 1988). The present evidence of sharing is certainly compatible with capacity models (cf.…”

“…It is also compatible with spotlight models that allow multiple locations to receive attention simultaneously (e.g., models including a diffuse attentional state or a gradient of attention), but it is incompatible with more restrictive spotlight models that allow only one attended location per trial (cf. Umilta, 1988). extract a maximum switching rate from studies of attentional movement.…”

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

“…Evidence that selective attention can operate within object-centred frames of reference has come from studies with both neuropsychologically impaired (e.g., Behrmann & Tipper, 1994, 1999Humphreys & Riddoch, 1994Tipper & Behrmann, 1996) and healthy (e.g., Gibson & Egeth, 1994;ReuterLorenz, Drain, & Hardy-Morais, 1996;Tipper et al, 1999;Umiltà et al, 1995) adults. In the spatial cueing literature, both facilitatory (e.g., Umiltà et al, 1995) and IOR (e.g., Gibson & Egeth, 1994;Tipper et al, 1999) cueing effects have been observed within object-centred frames of reference. These studies have shown that the two cueing effects can be associated with part of an object as it moves through space, as opposed to being tied to a fixed environmental location relative to the viewer.…”

“…These studies have shown that within-object locations can be coded in object-centred frames of reference (Fig. 2c), defined relative to one of the object's axes (e.g., elongation or symmetry), and that object-associated cueing effects remain unchanged, irrespective of changes in other, viewer-centred frames of reference (e.g., Gibson & Egeth, 1994;Reppa et al, 2010;Umiltà, Castiello, Fontana, & Vestri, 1995). For instance, Umiltà et al showed that facilitatory cueing effects were tied to the cued location within an object, irrespective of whether the cued location had changed relative to the viewer.…”

“…Evidence for object-based representations from moving-object studies Studies in selective attention have used the moving-objects method to examine how objects influence spatial cueing effects independently of their spatial location (e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994;Behrmann & Tipper, 1999;Christ et al, 2002;Gibson & Egeth, 1994;Kahneman et al, 1992;Lamy & Tsal, 2000;McCrae & Abrams, 2001;Müller & von Mühlenen, 1996;Ro & Rafal, 1999;Soto & Blanco, 2004;Tipper & Behrmann, 1996;Tipper et al, 1991;Tipper, Jordan, & Weaver, 1999;Tipper et al, 1994;Umiltà et al, 1995;Vivas, Humphreys, & Fuentes, 2008;Weaver, Lupiáñez, & Watson, 1998). This method has been primarily used to examine IOR effects, with fewer studies examining facilitatory effects (e.g., Lamy & Tsal, 2000;Soto & Blanco, 2004).…”