Facilitatory or inhibitory nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm

Attention Operating Characteristics in a Location-Cuing Task

The authors studied the allocation of visual attention in the location-cuing paradigm in order to differentiate between 2 general classes of mechanisms: (a) switching attention across locations on different trials and (b) sharing attention across multiple locations within a trial. In Experiment 1, attention was directed by the use of central cues of 4 different cue validities: 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% (in separate blocks). In Experiment 2, the percentage of correctly cued trials was fixed at 50%, but instructions and feedback were manipulated. The attention operating characteristic (AOC) curves provided evidence of sharing or hybrid (2-process) mechanisms. Thus, it appears that visual attention is characterized by a flexible allocation in response to task demands.

Nonspecific competition underlies transient attention

Cueing a target by abrupt visual stimuli enhances its perception in a rapid but short-lived fashion, an effect known as transient attention. Our recent study showed that when targets are cued at a constant, central location, the emergence of the transient performance pattern was dependent on the presence of competing distractors, whereas targets presented in isolation were enhanced in a sustained manner (Wilschut et al., PLoS ONE, 6:e27661, 2011). The current study examined in more detail whether the transience depends on the specific nature of the competition. We first replicated and extended the competition-dependent transient pattern for peripheral and variable target locations. We then investigated the role of feature similarity, compatibility, and proximity. Both competition by feature similarity and compatibility between the target and distractors were found to impair performance, but effects were additive with the effects of the cueing interval and did not change the transient performance function. Varying the spatial distance between target and distractors yielded mixed evidence, but here too a transient pattern could be observed for targets flanked by both close and far distractors. The results thus show that the presence or absence of competition determines whether attention appears transient or sustained, while the specific nature of the competition (in terms of location or feature) affects selection independent of time.

Attention enhances contrast sensitivity at cued and impairs it at uncued locations

Transient covert attention increases contrast sensitivity at the target location with an informative spatial cue. Here we explored whether an uninformative spatial cue (50% valid with two possible locations) also increases contrast sensitivity and whether contrast sensitivity is altered at the uncued location as compared to the neutral condition. For all four observers, transient covert attention had both a benefit and a cost: it enhanced contrast sensitivity at the cued location and impaired contrast sensitivity at the uncued location at both parafoveal and peripheral positions. These results are consistent with the idea of limited resources, and indicate that transient attention helps control the expenditure of cortical computation.

Goal-driven modulation of stimulus-driven attentional capture in multiple-cue displays

Six location-cuing experiments were conducted to examine the goal-driven control of attentional capture in multiple-cue displays. In most of the experiments, the cue display consisted of the simultaneous presentation of a red direct cue that was highly predictive of the target location (the unique cue) and three gray direct cues (the standard cues) that were not predictive of the location. The results indicated that although target responses were faster at all cued locations relative to uncued locations, they were significantly faster at the unique-cue location than at the standard-cue locations. Other results suggest that the faster responses produced by direct cues may be associated with two different components: an attention-related component that can be modulated by goal-driven factors and a nonattentional component that occurs in parallel at multiple direct-cue locations and is minimally affected by the same goal-driven factors.

Noise exclusion in spatial attention

Precue validity affects the performance of perceptual tasks. These spatial attention effects have been variously attributed to facilitation of processing, capacity allocation, or noise reduction. We used a new attention-plus-external (stimulus)-noise paradigm and model to identify the mechanisms of attention in cue-validity paradigms. A new phenomenon is reported: a large effect of location cue validity in an orientation identification task that specifically occurs when the stimulus is embedded in external (environmental or stimulus) noise. This result identifies the mechanism of the effect as external-noise exclusion, distinguished from stimulus enhancement that manifests itself only in noiseless stimulus environments.

Inhibition of return: support for generality of the phenomenon

Inhibition of return (IOR), first described in 1984, was considered to be a general phenomenon for ensuring that attention would be allocated to successive stimuli in the environment. In the present research, IOR was expressed in forced-choice identification tasks with either reaction time or accuracy as the dependent measure. Thus, the generality of IOR was supported, because response inhibition cannot explain IOR found with accuracy measures. Concepts from the variable and permeable filters metaphor are used to suggest how changes in attention can change expression of IOR by rapid variation in perceptual threshold.

Understanding diverse effects of visual attention with the VAP-filters metaphor

The Variable and Permeable Filters (VAP-Filters) metaphor is presented with an explanation of its advantages over other popular metaphors in accounting for attention effects in many different research paradigms. Research from laboratories of the author and others are discussed briefly and shown to result in diverse facilitatory and inhibitory attention effects on visual perception. All of these effects are consistent with the VAP-Filters metaphor.