VISUAL ATTENTION: Control, Representation, and Time Course

Egeth, Howard E.; Yantis, Steven

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269

Cited by 1,138 publications

(794 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

731

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The demonstration that attention is directed to objects in space has since been con®rmed by many studies (reviewed in Ref. [16]). As a matter of fact, normal observers ®nd it extremely dif®cult, if not impossible, to covertly attend to à blank' region of space, where no object is present (see Experiment 2 in Ref.…”

Section: Orienting Of Attention To Visual Objectsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orienting of attention in left unilateral neglect

Bartolomeo

Chokron

2002

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

286

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After right posterior brain damage, patients may ignore events occurring on their left, a condition known as unilateral neglect. Although de®cits at different levels of impairment may be at work in different patients, the frequency and severity of attentional problems in neglect patients have been repeatedly underlined. Recent advances in the knowledge of the mechanisms of spatial attention in normals may help characterizing these de®cits. The present review focuses on studies exploring several aspect of attentional processing in unilateral neglect, with particular reference to the dichotomy between`exogenous', or stimulus-related, and`endogenous', or strategy-driven, orienting of attention. A large amount of neuropsychological evidence suggests that a basic mechanism leading to left neglect behavior is an impaired exogenous orienting toward left-sided targets. In contrast, endogenous processes seem to be relatively preserved, if slowed, in left unilateral neglect. Other component de®cits, such as a general slowing of the operations of spatial attention, might contribute to neglect behavior. These results are presented and discussed, and their implications for hemispheric specialization in attentional orienting and for the mechanisms of visual consciousness are explored. q

show abstract

Section: Orienting Of Attention To Visual Objectsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…More recently, this distinction has been variously referred at as re¯exive/voluntary, bottom-up/ top-down, stimulus-driven/goal-directed or strategy-based, or exogenous/endogenous (see Ref. [16] for review). It is important to note that, logically speaking this dichotomy must be relative rather than absolute.…”

Section: The Exogenous/endogenous Dichotomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Orienting of attention in left unilateral neglect

Bartolomeo

Chokron

2002

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

286

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An object may become the focus of attention due to its particular physical properties such as brightness or unique shape (bottom-up signals), or because it matches current preferences and action goals of the observer (top-down signals; Egeth and Yantis, 1997;Fecteau and Munoz, 2006;Pashler et al, 2001). A central question for the study of attention is whether a salient stimulus may capture attention automatically by overriding observer's goals or intentions (Itti and Koch, 2000;Theeuwes, 2004;Van der Stigchel et al, 2009;Yantis and Jonides, 1984), or whether attention selects stimuli based on their relevance and compatibility with current action goals (Folk et al, 1992;Gibson and Jiang, 1998;Simons, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current controversy surrounds the question whether high-level features of a stimulus such as its relevance to the current task may affect early attentional processes. According to one view abruptly appearing stimuli gain priority during an initial feedforward processing stage and therefore capture attention even if they are irrelevant to the task. Alternatively, only stimuli that share a relevant property with the target may capture attention of the observer. Here, we used high-density EEG to test whether task relevance may modulate early feedforward brain activity, or whether it only becomes effective once the physical characteristics of the stimulus have been processed. We manipulated task relevance and visual saliency of distracters presented left or right of an upcoming central target. We found that only the relevance of distracters had an effect on manual reaction times to the target. However, the analysis of electrocortical activity revealed three discrete processing stages during which pure effects of distracter saliency (~80-160 ms), followed by an interaction between saliency and relevance (~130-240 ms) and finally pure effects of relevance (~230-370 ms) were observed. Electrical sources of early saliency effects and later relevance effects were localized in the posterior parietal cortex, predominantly over the right hemisphere. These findings support the view that during the initial feedforward stage only physical (bottom-up) factors determine cortical responses to visual stimuli, while top-down effects interfere at later processing stages.

show abstract

“…However, even if acquisition of useful linguistic information from a parafoveal target preview required the allocation of attention to it, it is not clear that such a shift of attention was delayed relative to the onset of a fixation. Estimates of the minimal time needed for an attention shift from one location to another are in the vicinity of 50 ms (Posner, 1980;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Wolfe, 1998), although there are other persuasive views that propose that it may take considerably longer than that (see Egeth & Yantis, 1997;Horowitz, Holcombe, Wolfe, Arsenio, & DiMase, 2004;Theeuwes, Godijn, & Pratt, 2004;Ward, 2001). For example, Horowitz et al (2004) suggest that "attentional saccades" between objects may take as much as 300 ms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Course of Linguistic Information Extraction From Consecutive Words During Eye Fixations in Reading.

Inhoff¹,

Eiter²,

Radach³

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sequential attention shift models of reading predict that an attended (typically fixated) word must be recognized before useful linguistic information can be obtained from the following (parafoveal) word. These models also predict that linguistic information is obtained from a parafoveal word immediately prior to a saccade toward it. To test these assumptions, sentences were constructed with a critical pretarget-target word sequence, and the temporal availability of the (parafoveal) target preview was manipulated while the pretarget word was fixated. Target viewing effects, examined as a function of prior target visibility, revealed that extraction of linguistic target information began 70-140 ms after the onset of pretarget viewing. Critically, acquisition of useful linguistic information from a target was not confined to the ending period of pretarget viewing. These results favor theoretical conceptions in which there is some temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of a fixated and parafoveally visible word during reading. Keywordsreading; attention; parafoveal preview; alternating case; parallel processing Written language consists of a spatially ordered sequence of symbols, many of which are concurrently available to a reader. High-acuity vision is confined to a relatively small retinal area at any point in time that roughly corresponds to the fovea and immediately adjacent parafovea, so that only a limited amount of visual detail can be discerned when the eyes gaze at (fixate) a particular text location. Hence, readers need to move the eyes at or near a word to recognize it. Normal reading thus requires the development of a task-specific skill, that is, the dynamic coordination of eye movement (saccade) programming with successful visual word recognition and text comprehension.Effects of this coordination are evident in the general progression of eye movements with word order and in robust effects of a word's spatial and linguistic properties on its viewing pattern (see Kennedy, 2004, andRayner, 1998, for reviews). The coordination of eye movement programming with linguistic processes does not require, however, that the eyes are always moved from one word to the next. Although interword saccades to consecutive words Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological AssociationCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Albrecht W. Inhoff, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. E-mail: E-mail: inhoff@binghamton.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscriptin the text are the most common type of eye movement during skilled reading, there is a relatively large proportion of other saccades (Hogaboam, 1983) that move the eyes to a different location within the same word (refixations), to a word beyond the next word in the text (skipping), or to a previously read word (interword regressions). The frequency with which these saccades are executed is a function of word and...

show abstract

VISUAL ATTENTION: Control, Representation, and Time Course

Cited by 1,138 publications

References 146 publications

Orienting of attention in left unilateral neglect

Orienting of attention in left unilateral neglect

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

Time Course of Linguistic Information Extraction From Consecutive Words During Eye Fixations in Reading.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About