The impact of scaling rather than shaping attention: Changes in the scale of attention using global motion inducers influence both spatial and temporal acuity.

Abstract

Originally, the zoom lens model of attention scaling proposed that narrowing attention to a small area of the visual field improves visual perception (Eriksen & James, 1986). A large body of empirical evidence supports this model, showing that narrow attention enhances performance in spatial acuity tasks. Despite this, the zoom lens model does not explicitly consider how attention scaling influences different elements of vision, for example, temporal processing. More recent models of attention scaling suggests that attentional scaling has different effects on spatial and temporal acuity (Goodhew et al., 2017, 2016). However, the evidence to date supporting these models has had one major pitfall: different sized unfilled shapes are presented in an attempt to focus attention in or spread it out broadly. This method is problematic because participants may not spread their attention across the entire region defined by unfilled shapes, instead, attending to only the annulus region of the shape. To address this, we developed a new method to manipulate attention, one which requires the pooling of information across the entire stimulus, not just around the outer border. We then tested the influence of attention scaling on perception using spatial and temporal gap tasks. Across two experiments, we found that sustaining a narrow attention scale improved both spatial and temporal acuity. These findings challenge recent research suggesting that attention scaling has differential impacts on spatial and temporal processing, instead supporting the zoom lens model, proposed over 30 years ago.

Automatic object-based spatial selection depends on the distribution of sustained attention

“…Forty-one participants with normal or corrected-to-normal vision were recruited through the Texas Tech University Research Participation System (SONA) for a 1-hr experiment in exchange for partial course credit. We elected to recruit a relatively large sample size compared with similar behavioral studies (among several recent studies cited in the Introduction, range = 8–41, mean N = 29.7; Al-Janabi & Greenberg, 2016 ; Goodhew et al, 2017 ; Goodhew et al, 2016 ; Huang et al, 2016 ; Lawrence et al, 2020 ) to accommodate possible individual differences given the challenging flanker task and our predictions regarding an interaction between within-subject conditions. Prior to the experiment, each participant gave written informed consent in accordance with the Institutional Review Board and the Declaration of Helsinki requirements.…”

“…One effective approach to modulate attentional field size while maintaining spatial certainty is to attach relevance to the cue that nonetheless elicits a malformed field with regard to specific target identification goals (Goodhew et al, 2016 ; Goodhew et al, 2017 ; LaBerge, 1983 ; Lawrence et al, 2020 ). During an inducer task, Goodhew and colleagues instructed participants to make shape judgments about an enclosed, centrally positioned frame, serving to produce a stable attentional spotlight of a prescribed size.…”

Using perceptual tasks to selectively measure magnocellular and parvocellular performance: Rationale and a user’s guide

“…In other words, the midpoint on the curve is where the smallest change in stimulus intensity results in the greatest change in performance. If the psychological attribute being manipulated in the study (e.g., the size of the spatial region over which attention is allocated) has an effect on the sensitivity of the visual system to high-spatial frequencies (e.g., Lawrence et al, 2020 ), this can be thought of as being equivalent to keeping the sensitivity of the system constant, and changing the stimulus intensity. Therefore, starting at this performance midpoint will result in the most sensitive measure of the effect of that manipulation.…”

“…In spite of these limitations, a number of studies have used low versus high spatial-frequency defined stimuli to selectively drive the M and P pathways, respectively, and have found differential results for the different spatial frequencies (Abrams & Weidler, 2014 ; Goodhew et al, 2017 ; Goodhew & Clarke, 2016 ). For example, a manipulation designed to decrease the size of the attended region improved orientation-discrimination performance when high-spatial-frequency Gabors were used, but not low-spatial-frequency Gabors (Goodhew et al, 2017 ; but also see Lawrence et al, 2020 ). These studies suggest that it is possible to selectively drive the M and P pathways via low and high spatial-frequency stimuli.…”

“…The second reason is that, in cognitive psychology, attempts have been made to link certain cognitive functions to specific pathways. For example, it has been proposed that attentional modulation may have differing effects on the M and P pathways (Goodhew, Shen, & Edwards, 2016;Vidyasagar, 2004;Yeshurun & Carrasco, 1998;Yeshurun & Levy, 2003;Yeshurun & Sabo, 2012; though also see Lawrence, Edwards, & Goodhew, 2020), and that the proximity of the hands can alter the relative contribution of the two pathways to visual perception (Bush & Vecera, 2014;Goodhew, Edwards, Ferber, & Pratt, 2015;Gozli, West, & Pratt, 2012). Note that the koniocellular pathway is another important pathway that project from the dLGN (Kaplan, 2012).…”