Limited featured-based attention to multiple features

Differential impact of exogenous and endogenous attention on the contrast sensitivity function across eccentricity

Both exogenous and endogenous covert spatial attention enhance contrast sensitivity, a fundamental measure of visual function that depends substantially on the spatial frequency and eccentricity of a stimulus. Whether and how each type of attention systematically improves contrast sensitivity across spatial frequency and eccentricity are fundamental to our understanding of visual perception. Previous studies have assessed the effects of spatial attention at individual spatial frequencies and, separately, at different eccentricities, but this is the first study to do so parametrically with the same task and observers. Using an orientation discrimination task, we investigated the effect of attention on contrast sensitivity over a wide range of spatial frequencies and eccentricities. Targets were presented alone or among distractors to assess signal enhancement and distractor suppression mechanisms of spatial attention. At each eccentricity, we found that exogenous attention preferentially enhanced spatial frequencies higher than the peak frequency in the baseline condition. In contrast, endogenous attention similarly enhanced a broad range of lower and higher spatial frequencies. The presence or absence of distractors did not alter the pattern of enhancement by each type of attention. Our findings reveal how the two types of covert spatial attention differentially shape how we perceive basic visual dimensions across the visual field.

In search of exogenous feature-based attention

Visual attention prioritizes the processing of sensory information at specific spatial locations (spatial attention; SA) or with specific feature values (feature-based attention; FBA). SA is well characterized in terms of behavior, brain activity, and temporal dynamics-for both top-down (endogenous) and bottom-up (exogenous) spatial orienting. FBA has been thoroughly studied in terms of top-down endogenous orienting, but much less is known about the potential of bottom-up exogenous influences of FBA. Here, in four experiments, we adapted a procedure used in two previous studies that reported exogenous FBA effects, with the goal of replicating and expanding on these findings, especially regarding its temporal dynamics. Unlike the two previous studies, we did not find significant effects of exogenous FBA. This was true (1) whether accuracy or RT was prioritized as the main measure, (2) with precues presented peripherally or centrally, (3) with cue-to-stimulus ISIs of varying durations, (4) with four or eight possible target locations, (5) at different meridians, (6) with either brief or long stimulus presentations, (7) and with either fixation contingent or noncontingent stimulus displays. In the last experiment, a postexperiment participant questionnaire indicated that only a small subset of participants, who mistakenly believed the irrelevant color of the precue indicated which stimulus was the target, exhibited benefits for valid exogenous FBA precues. Overall, we conclude that with the protocol used in the studies reporting exogenous FBA, the exogenous stimulus-driven influence of FBA is elusive at best, and that FBA is primarily a top-down, goal-driven process.

Feature-based attention: effects and control

Feature-based attention prioritizes the processing of non-spatial features across the visual field. Classical studies revealed a feature-similarity gain modulation of sensory neuron's activity. While early studies that quantified behavioral performance have provided support for this model, recent studies have revealed a non-monotonic, surround suppression effect in near feature space. The attentional suppression effects may give rise to a highly limited capacity when selecting multiple features, as documented by studies manipulating the number of attended features. These effects of feature-based attention are likely due to attentional control mechanisms exerting top-down modulations, which have been linked to neural signals in the dorsal frontoparietal network. The neural representation of attentional priority at multiple levels of the visual hierarchy thus shape visual perception and behavioral performance.

Working memory capacity affects trade-off between quality and quantity only when stimulus exposure duration is sufficient: Evidence for the two-phase model

The relation between visual working memory (VWM) capacity and attention has attracted much interest. In this study, we investigated the correlation between the participants’ VWM capacity and their ability to voluntarily trade off the precision and number of items remembered. The two-phase resource allocation model proposed by Ye et al. (2017) suggests that for a given set size, it takes a certain amount of consolidation time for an individual to control attention to adjust the VWM resources to trade off the precision and number. To verify whether trade-off ability varies across VWM capacity, we measured each individual’s VWM capacity and then conducted a colour recall task to examine their trade-off ability. By manipulating the task requirement, participants were instructed to memorise either more colours in a low-precision way or fewer colours in a high-precision way. We conducted two experiments by adjusting stimulus duration to be longer than predicted critical value (Experiment 1) and duration shorter than predicted critical value (Experiment 2). While the results of Experiment 1 showed a positive correlation between the VWM capacity and trade-off ability, the results of Experiment 2 showed a lack of such correlation. These results are consistent with the prediction from the two-phase model.

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

A visual feature associated with reward can capture attention when it is neither physically salient nor task relevant. Although such findings suggest that reward acts similarly as physical salience, it is unknown whether reward works independently or interactively with physical salience to modulate attentional priority. Here, we first trained participants to associate two motion directions with high and low reward. During the test, we presented superimposed but perceptually separable stimuli that consisted of coherently and randomly moving dot fields, while manipulating the physical salience (low vs. high contrast) and reward history (low vs. high reward) of the coherent stimulus. Participants were instructed to identify speed-up targets on the coherent or random stimulus. We found that reward improved target detection in the coherent stimulus regardless of the physical contrast, whereas reward disrupted target detection in the random stimulus only when the coherent stimulus was of high contrast. Our findings thus suggest that goal-directed, feature-specific selection determines the pattern of interaction between reward and physical salience, such that they contribute either independently or interactively to attentional priority. We propose two possible mechanisms that can account for the intricate patterns of influence among multiple sources of priority.

Task-dependent effects of voluntary space-based and involuntary feature-based attention on visual working memory

Previous research has shown that visual working memory (VWM) can be modulated by space-based or feature-based attentional selection. However, it remains unclear how the two modes of attention operate jointly to affect VWM, and in particular, if involuntary feature-based attention plays a role in VWM. In this study, a pre-cued change detection paradigm was employed to investigate the concurrent effects of space- and feature-based attention on VWM. Space-based attention was manipulated by informative spatial cueing and by varying the proximity between the test item and the cued (fixated) memory item, while feature-based attention was induced in an involuntary manner by having the test item to share the same color or shape with the cued item on a fraction of trials. The results showed that: (1) the memory performance for the cued items was always better than the uncued items, suggesting a beneficial effect of voluntary spatial attention; (2) with a brief duration of the memory array (250 ms), cue-test proximity benefited VWM in the shape judgment task but not in the color judgment task, whereas with a longer duration (1200 ms), no proximity effect was found for either task; (3) VWM was improved for the same-colored items regardless of the task and duration; (4) VWM was improved for the same-shaped items only in the shape judgment task with the longer duration of the memory array. A discrimination task further showed that the proximity effect associated with VWM reflects a perceptual bottleneck in memory encoding for shape but not for color with a brief display. Our results suggest that involuntary feature-based attention could be triggered by spatial cueing to modulate VWM; involuntary color-based attention facilitates VWM independently of task, whereas shape-based facilitation is task-dependent, i.e., confined only to the shape judgment task, presumably reflecting different attention-guiding potencies of the two features.

Top-Down Attention Is Limited Within but Not Between Feature Dimensions

In natural vision, processing of spatial and nonspatial features occurs simultaneously; however, the two types of attention in charge of facilitating this processing have distinct mechanisms. Here, we tested the independence of spatial and feature-based attention at different stages of visual processing by examining color-based attentional selection while spatial attention was focused or divided. Human observers attended to one or two of four fields of randomly moving dots presented in both left and right visual hemifields. In the focused attention condition, the target stimulus was defined both by color and location, whereas in the divided attention condition stimuli of the target color had to be attended in both hemifields. Sustained attentional selection was measured by means of steady-state visual evoked potentials elicited by each of the frequency-tagged flickering dot fields. Additionally, target and distractor selection was assessed with ERPs to these stimuli. We found that spatial and color-based attention independently modulated the amplitude of steady-state visual evoked potentials, confirming independent top-down influences on early visual areas. In contrast, P3 amplitudes elicited only by targets and distractors of the attended color were subject to space-based enhancement, suggesting increasing integration of spatial and feature-based selection over the course of perceptual processing.

Limits in feature-based attention to multiple colors

Attention to a feature enhances the sensory representation of that feature. Although much has been learned about the properties of attentional modulation when attending to a single feature, the effectiveness of attending to multiple features is not well understood. We investigated this question in a series of experiments using a color-detection task while varying the number of attended colors in a cueing paradigm. Observers were shown either a single cue, two cues, or no cue (baseline) before detecting a coherent color target. We measured detection threshold by varying the coherence level of the target. Compared to the baseline condition, we found consistent facilitation of detection performance in the one-cue and two-cue conditions, but performance in the two-cue condition was lower than that in the one-cue condition. In the final experiment, we presented a 50% valid cue to emulate the situation in which observers were only able to attend a single color in the two-cue condition, and found equivalent detection thresholds with the standard two-cue condition. These results indicate a limit in attending to two colors and further imply that observers could effectively attend a single color at a time. Such a limit is likely due to an inability to maintain multiple active attentional templates for colors.