The exogenous and endogenous control of attentional focusing

Abstract

Selective visual attention involves prioritizing both the location (orienting) and distribution (focusing) of processing. To date, much more research has examined attentional orienting than focusing. One of the most well-established findings is that orienting can be exogenous, as when a unique change in luminance draws attention to a spatial location (e.g., Theeuwes in Atten Percept Psychophys 51:599-606, 1992; Yantis and Jonides in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:601, 1984), and endogenous, as when a red distractor shape diverts attention when one is looking for a red target (e.g., Bacon and Egeth in Percept Psychophys 55:485-496, 1994; Folk et al. in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:1030, 1992). Here we ask whether attentional focusing-the broadening and contracting of prioritized processing-is influenced by the same two factors. Our methodology involved a dual-stream attentional blink task; participants monitored two spatially separated streams of items for two targets that could appear unpredictably either in the same stream or in opposite streams. The spatial distribution of attention was assessed by examining second-target accuracy in relation to inter-target lag and target location (same or opposite streams). In Experiment 1, we found that attentional contracting was more rapid when the targets differed in luminance from the distractor items. In Experiments 2 and 3, we found that the rate of attentional contracting was slower when there were task-relevant distractors in the stream opposite the first target. These results indicate that the rate of attentional focusing, like orienting, can be modulated by both exogenous and endogenous mechanisms.

Flexibility in resizing attentional breadth: Asymmetrical versus symmetrical attentional contraction and expansion costs depends on context

“…The critical importance of context on attentional resizing is consistent with the finding that the rate of contraction efficiency is not constant, but instead varies across stimulus salience and task demands (Jefferies et al, 2017). Furthermore, training of attentional-breadth-like constructs has been found to be fruitful in related domains (Lutz, Slagter, Dunne, & Davidson, 2008; Rolle, Anguera, Skinner, Voytek, & Gazzaley, 2017; Sekuler & Ball, 1986).…”

“…For instance, it is obviously problematic to be psychologically “stuck” at the narrow focus of attention and have difficulty expanding attentional breadth after glancing to the speedometer, as subsequent hazard perception would suffer. Given this critical importance, it is striking that in contrast to shifts of attention, with some notable exceptions (Benso et al, 1998; Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009; Jefferies, Enns, & Di Lollo, 2017), relatively little is known about the mechanisms of rescaling attentional size or breadth. The purpose of this study was to assess whether there is an asymmetry in individuals’ preference or ability towards expanding or contracting their attentional breadth.…”

“…Most of previous studies that have assessed the dynamics of resizing have focussed on just one direction of change (i.e., expansion or contraction). The substantial differences in methodologies make it difficult to compare across studies to determine whether an asymmetry in resizing dynamics is present (Benso et al, 1998; Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009; Jefferies et al, 2017). One older study sought to assess whether an asymmetry was present by examining the dynamics of both expansion and contraction (Stoffer, 1993); however, the methodology in their studies conflated a number of processes, including attentional shifts as well as attentional breadth changes, and the use of physical cues in addition to the Navon stimuli to manipulate the breadth of attention, which may have unintended consequences.…”

Attention scaling modulates the effective capacity of visual sensory memory

“…Benso, Turatto, Mascetti, and Umiltà (1998) estimated that it took 33-66 ms to expand the focus of attention to match the size of an abrupt-onset spatial pre-cue. Jefferies and colleagues estimated that the focus of attention could be contracted within 64-103 ms, depending on relevance of the stimuli for the task at hand (Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009;Jefferies, Enns, & Di Lollo, 2017). In all cases, the estimated time required to rescale the attentional focus is less than the 150-ms SOA between the onset of the cue and the onset of the character array in the present study.…”

First unitary, then divided: the temporal dynamics of dividing attention

“…Although we presume that the sequence by which the focus of attention is initially deployed in unitary form and then gradually divided before settling on a single location is a general one, the exact timing of the transitions will almost certainly depend on the specific characteristics of the task and the stimuli. It has been shown, for example, that the rate at which observers can disengage from and narrow attention away from task-relevant information is much slower than the rate at which observers can disengage and shift away from task-irrelevant information (e.g., Jefferies, Enns, & Di Lollo, 2017;. Along the same lines, we assume that the change from unitary to divided attention will occur earlier or later depending on the specific displays being used as well as on the task requirements.…”