Split attention as part of a flexible attentional system for complex scenes: Comment on Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010).

Abstract

Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010) examined the studies demonstrating that spatial attention can be split across 2 noncontiguous target locations. They find all these studies to be flawed and conclude that spatial attention only selects a single location at any given time. They do, however, suggest that there could be exceptional circumstances that allow for split attention. As Jans et al. point out, there are credible alternative explanations for many of the split-attention results, and it is necessary to establish high methodological standards for this question. However, a close examination of the criteria that they propose for split attention shows that they are unnecessarily constraining, making it virtually impossible for any experiment to meet all the criteria. Jans et al. also apply their criteria inconsistently and do not hold their unified attention account to the same standard that they demand for split-attention accounts. When a more even-handed standard is adopted, the split attention account emerges as a viable explanation and perhaps the most parsimonious explanation for some of the experimental results. Jans et al. do not consider visual tasks, such as extracting the gist from a complex scene, that suggest that in some circumstances complex visual processing is possible while multiple locations are selected. We propose a new theoretical framework, based on a minimal filtering principle, to explain how the attentional system adjusts between situations in which multiple locations can be selected simultaneously and situations in which only a single location must be selected.

The flexible focus: Whether spatial attention is unitary or divided depends on observer goals.

“…Further, it seems likely that the mechanism required to define and maintain such an annular distribution of attention, particularly when it involves an empty region of space, might be more complex than a mechanism that maintains attention to two separate locations (see Cave, Bush, & Taylor, 2010). There is also compelling experimental evidence to speak against an annulus-shaped attentional focus in a…”

“…Making a correct response depends on comparing the two letters, thus a rapid-switching interpretation would require that one letter be identified, a switch occur between the streams, and then a second letter be identified all within the 70-ms exposure duration. This short exposure duration (especially when combined with simultaneous, spatially separated targets) seems sufficient to preclude a rapid switching account (e.g., Cave, Bush, & Taylor, 2010;Jans, Peters, & De Weerd, 2010;Weichselgartner & Sperling, 1987). Further, given the distinct pattern of T2-pair accuracies in the T1-pair Predictable and the T1-pair Unpredictable conditions, the pattern of rapid switching must necessarily have differed between the T1-pair Predictable and the T1-pair Unpredictable conditions, and there is no clear reason why this might be the case.…”

“…Theories to account for this benefit typically appeal to either (a) a single unitary focus of attention that expands and contracts so as to optimize performance on the task at hand (e.g., Barriopedro & Botella, 1998;Castiello & Umiltà, 1990 Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Eriksen & Yeh, 1985;Heinze et al, 1994;Jans, Peters, & De Weerd, 2010;Jonides, 1983), or (b) multiple foci deployed to different locations simultaneously (e.g., Awh & Pashler, 2000;Cave, Bush, & Taylor, 2010; Kawahara & Yamada, 2007;McMains & Somers, 2004, 2005Müller et al, 2003). Here we demonstrate that focused attention can be flexibly deployed in either a unitary or a divided mode.…”

Can training change attentional breadth? Failure to find transfer effects

“…According to theoretical models and empirical evidence in the visual attention domain, the field of focal attention could be seen as a single unitary focus that varies its size depending on task requirements (e.g., zoom lens model, Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Barriopedro & Botella, 1998;Muller, Bartele, Donner, Villringer, & Brandt, 2003), or as multiple foci attending to different places in a display simultaneously (e.g., Awh & Pashler, 2000;Cave, Bush, & Taylor, 2010). Notably, the mode of attentional deployment (as a changeable zoom lens or multiple foci) could even be altered within a task due to a simple change in the goals of the participants (Jefferies, Enns, & Di Lollo, 2014).…”

One Focus or Many? Modeling Attentional Distributions During Spatial Term Use

“…As a consequence, they propose four methodological criterias to avoid these problems. Nevertheless, Cave, Bush, and Taylor (2010) argue that these criterias are too strict. Newest research is still dealing with this question, e.g., Feng and Spence (2013); Je eries, Enns, and Di Lollo (2013).…”