Resource demands of object tracking and differential allocation of the resource

Chen, Wei‐Ying; Howe, Piers D. L.; Holcombe, Alex O.

doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0425-1

Cited by 33 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, Holcombe and Chen (2012) found that two circling targets could be tracked at the same speed as a single target if the targets were displayed in separate hemifields. Several other studies have also found a strong advantage for tracking circling stimuli that are distributed across the hemifields (Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2004;Chen, Howe, & Holcombe, 2013;Shim, Alvarez, Vickery, & Jiang, 2010) or across quadrants (Carlson et al, 2007). In contrast, hemifield findings with targets that do not circle have been mixed.…”

Section: Hemifield Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…IMOT is insensitive to the hemifield in which objects are located, but research suggests there is a considerable advantage to tracking targets that are split across hemifields (Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2004;Chen et al, 2013;Shim et al, 2010). Hemifield advantages could be addressed in several ways, including limiting suppressive surrounds to affect only other targets in the same hemifield (Chelazzi, Miller, Duncan, & Desimone, 1993), processing some information such as motion histories in parallel across the two hemifields, or even selecting separate foci of attention in each hemifield (Holcombe & Chen, 2012).…”

Section: Hemifield Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection enables enhancement: An integrated model of object tracking

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diversity of research on visual attention and multipleobject tracking presents challenges for anyone hoping to develop a unified account. One key challenge is identifying the attentional limitations that give rise to competition among targets during tracking. To address this challenge, we present a computational model of object tracking that relies on two attentional mechanisms: serial selection and parallel enhancement. Selection picks out an object for further processing, whereas enhancement increases sensitivity to stimuli in regions where objects have been selected previously. In this model, multiple target locations can be tracked in parallel via enhancement, whereas a single target can be selected so that additional information beyond its location can be processed. In simulations of two psychological experiments, we demonstrate that spatial competition during enhancement and temporal competition for selection can explain a range of findings on multipleobject tracking, and we argue that the interaction between selection and enhancement captured in the model is critical to understanding attention more broadly.Here we summarize five classes of MOT findings, each of which helps to elucidate the limits of human visual attention. Two classes, spatial constraints and temporal constraints, directly address limits on attention. The third class, hemifield advantages, indicates one way of overcoming those limits. The fourth class, dynamic operation, suggests that the demands on attention can change over time during tracking. The final class, sensitivity to motion, demonstrates that processing complex visual features puts additional demands on attention beyond those required simply for tracking targets. Spatial constraintsSeveral studies have found that tracking ability depends on the distance between targets, with performance declining when targets are able to move closer to each other

show abstract

Section: Hemifield Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Hemifield Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection enables enhancement: An integrated model of object tracking

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would help explain certain findings of dual-task interference such as between tracking and auditory discrimination (Allen, McGeorge, Pearson, & Milne, 2004Alvarez, Horowitz, Arsenio, DiMase, & Wolfe, 2005;Tombu & Seiffert, 2008). Because tracking is largely independent in the left and right hemifields Chen, Howe, & Holcombe, 2013), two such resources must be posited, one in each cerebral hemisphere. For present purposes, a critical aspect of these theories is that the resource is hemifield-wide, as opposed to different bits of the resource processing different regions of the hemifield.…”

Section: Resource Theories and Spatial Interference Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object tracking: Absence of long-range spatial interference supports resource theories

Holcombe¹,

Chen²,

Howe³

2014

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional tracking of a moving target can be impaired by the presence of a second object, particularly if the second object is another target. One potential cause of this impairment is spatial interference. But the impairment may alternatively reflect a need to divide a finite attentional resource among targets. The performance cost of splitting a resource among targets should not be affected by the targets' proximity and should persist even at very large target separations. In contrast, spatial interference should impair performance more when the second object is near than when it is far. Here, we report six experiments that assess the effect of the separation between two targets. Within the crowding zone for target identification found by previous psychophysical literature, tracking performance improved with separation. Beyond the crowding zone, there was no evidence that increases in separation improved two-target performance, suggesting no long-range spatial interference. Unexpectedly, in the one-target condition, greater separation from other distractors reduced performance somewhat. This may reflect a configural tracking process. For the two-target condition, due to the absence of a separation effect beyond the crowding zone, at the largest separations performance at tracking two targets remained much poorer than performance tracking one target. This large additional-target cost is better explained by hemisphere-specific resource theories than by spatial interference.

show abstract

“…IPS is also involved in imagined movements (de Lange et al 2006;Grèzes and Decety 2001) as are posterior parietal (de Lange et al 2005) and inferior parietal areas (Guillot et al 2009). It also appears that the tracking resource, like motor control, is somewhat independent in the two hemispheres (Alvarez and Cavanagh 2005;Chen et al 2013;Holcombe et al 2014). Together, these findings point to the possibility that motor imagery or rehearsal is used to support spatial attention, particularly if a motor response is required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Engagement of the motor system in position monitoring: Reduced distractor suppression and effects of internal representation quality on motor kinematics

Howard¹,

Boulton²,

Brown³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The position monitoring task is a measure of divided spatial attention in which participants track the changing positions of one or more objects, attempting to represent positions with as much precision as possible. Typically precision of representations declines with each target object added to participants' attention load. Since the motor system requires precise representations of changing target positions, we investigated whether position monitoring would be facilitated by increasing engagement of the motor system. Using motion capture, we recorded the positions of participants' index finger during pointing responses. Participants attempted to monitor the changing positions of between one and four target discs as they moved randomly around a large projected display. After a period of disc motion, all discs disappeared and participants were prompted to report the final position of one of the targets, either by mouse click or by pointing to the final perceived position on the screen. For mouse-click responses, precision declined with attentional load. For pointing responses, precision declined only up to three targets and remained at the same level for four targets, suggesting obligatory attention to all four objects for loads above two targets. Kinematic profiles for pointing responses for highest and lowest loads showed greater motor adjustments during the point, demonstrating that, like external environmental task demands, the quality of internal representations affects motor kinematics. Specifically, these adjustments reflect the difficulty of both pointing to very precisely represented locations as well as keeping representations distinct from one another.

show abstract

Resource demands of object tracking and differential allocation of the resource

Cited by 33 publications

References 36 publications

Selection enables enhancement: An integrated model of object tracking

Selection enables enhancement: An integrated model of object tracking

Object tracking: Absence of long-range spatial interference supports resource theories

Engagement of the motor system in position monitoring: Reduced distractor suppression and effects of internal representation quality on motor kinematics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About