The effects of perceptual load in central and peripheral regions of the visual field

The effect of billboard design specifications on driving: A driving simulator study

Research on the effect of advertising billboards on road safety has accumulated over the past seven decades, but has led to inconclusive data, which prevent clear-cut conclusions. To enhance road safety, it was suggested that researchers should shift their efforts to exploring which billboard characteristics are distracting by nature. This line of research may promote the establishment of concrete guidelines for the least distracting permissible billboards. A previous study classified billboards into three clusters: 1. Loaded (colorful billboards with small quantities of graphic elements and large quantities of text); 2. Graphical (colorful billboards with large quantities of graphic elements and small quantities of text); and 3. Minimal (billboards with few or no graphic elements, few colors, and a small amount of text). The current study systematically explores the effect of these three clusters on drivers' performance in a driving simulator. Eighteen participants drove in scenarios which systematically manipulated the following variables: the perceptual load on the road, the perceptual load on the sides of the road, location of preplanned critical events, and the presence of billboards from each one of the three previously identified clusters. The findings show that the presence of billboards from the Loaded and Minimal clusters significantly compromised road safety in various experimental conditions. However, the presence of billboards from the Graphical cluster significantly affected drivers' performance only in one experimental condition. The conclusion, for the time being, is that Graphical billboards, which include a large quantity of graphic elements with few or no textual elements, are the least harmful while driving.

Large inter-individual and intra-individual variability in the effect of perceptual load

This study examined whether the recurrent difficulty to replicate results obtained with paradigms measuring distractor processing as a function of perceptual load is due to individual differences. We first reanalyzed, at the individual level, the data of eight previously reported experiments. These reanalyses revealed substantial inter-individual differences, with particularly low percentage of participants whose performance matched the load theory's predictions (i.e., larger distractor interference with low than high levels of load). Moreover, frequently the results were opposite to the theory's predictions-larger interference in the high than low load condition; and often a reversed compatibility effect emerged-better performance in the incompatible than neutral condition. Subsequently, seven observers participated in five identical experimental sessions. If the observed inter-individual differences are due to some stable trait or perceptual capacity, similar results should have emerged in all sessions of a given participant. However, all seven participants showed large between-sessions variations with similar patterns to those found between participants. These findings question the theoretical foundation implemented with these paradigms, as none of the theories suggested thus far can account for such inter- and intra-individual differences. Thus, these paradigms should be used with caution until further research will provide better understanding of what they actually measure.

Perceptual load in different regions of the visual scene and its relevance for driving

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to better understand the role played by perceptual load, at both central and peripheral regions of the visual scene, in driving safety.

BACKGROUND

Attention is a crucial factor in driving safety, and previous laboratory studies suggest that perceptual load is an important factor determining the efficiency of attentional selectivity. Yet, the effects of perceptual load on driving were never studied systematically.

METHOD

Using a driving simulator, we orthogonally manipulated the load levels at the road (central load) and its sides (peripheral load), while occasionally introducing critical events at one of these regions.

RESULTS

Perceptual load affected driving performance at both regions of the visual scene. Critically, the effect was different for central versus peripheral load: Whereas load levels on the road mainly affected driving speed, load levels on its sides mainly affected the ability to detect critical events initiating from the roadsides. Moreover, higher levels of peripheral load impaired performance but mainly with low levels of central load, replicating findings with simple letter stimuli.

CONCLUSION

Perceptual load has a considerable effect on driving, but the nature of this effect depends on the region of the visual scene at which the load is introduced.

APPLICATION

Given the observed importance of perceptual load, authors of future studies of driving safety should take it into account. Specifically, these findings suggest that our understanding of factors that may be relevant for driving safety would benefit from studying these factors under different levels of load at different regions of the visual scene.

Constraints on dilution from a narrow attentional zoom reveal how spatial and color cues direct selection

Distractor interference is subject to dilution from other nontarget elements, and the level of dilution is affected by attention. This study explores the nature of dilution when the location and color of the target is known in advance. Experiments 1 and 2 show that attention is effectively limited to the precued region, so that it is the nontarget letters appearing at the cued locations that are responsible for most of the dilution, and not those appearing at the uncued locations. Furthermore, this dilution occurs relatively early in processing. Experiment 3 demonstrates that top-down attentional control can prevent dilution, because foreknowledge of the target color leads to quick attention shifts. Experiment 4 illustrates bottom-up attentional control in preventing dilution when the distractor is a color singleton that is segregated from the diluting nontargets. The results show that dilution is modulated by both top-down and bottom-up factors, that it can occur even when attention is restricted to a relatively small region, and that it occurs early in processing, but not so early that it avoids the effects of attention. They provide new challenges for earlier accounts suggesting that dilution is widespread and unfettered by attention. Likewise, some parts of the results are difficult to reconcile with the alternative perceptual load theory, but they do support a form of dilution that is limited by attentional boundaries. Because of that link to attention, dilution is a useful tool for measuring how attention is guided by information about target location and color.

Domain-specific control of selective attention

Previous research has shown that loading information on working memory affects selective attention. However, whether the load effect on selective attention is domain-general or domain-specific remains unresolved. The domain-general effect refers to the findings that load in one content (e.g. phonological) domain in working memory influences processing in another content (e.g., visuospatial) domain. Attentional control supervises selection regardless of information domain. The domain-specific effect refers to the constraint of influence only when maintenance and processing operate in the same domain. Selective attention operates in a specific content domain. This study is designed to resolve this controversy. Across three experiments, we manipulated the type of representation maintained in working memory and the type of representation upon which the participants must exert control to resolve conflict and select a target into the focus of attention. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants maintained digits and nonverbalized objects, respectively, in working memory while selecting a target in a letter array. In Experiment 2, we presented auditory digits with a letter flanker task to exclude the involvement of resource competition within the same input modality. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we replaced the letter flanker task with an object flanker task while manipulating the memory load on object and digit representation, respectively. The results consistently showed that memory load modulated distractibility only when the stimuli of the two tasks were represented in the same domain. The magnitude of distractor interference was larger under high load than under low load, reflecting a lower efficacy of information prioritization. When the stimuli of the two tasks were represented in different domains, memory load did not modulate distractibility. Control of processing priority in selective attention demands domain-specific resources.

Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects

Perceptual load theory [Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.; Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994) Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.] proposes that interference from distractors can only be avoided in situations of high perceptual load. This theory has been supported by blocked design manipulations separating low load (when the target appears alone) and high load (when the target is embedded among neutral letters). Tsal and Benoni [(2010a). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645-1656.; Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2010). Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vision Research, 50, 1292-1298.] have recently shown that these manipulations confound perceptual load with "dilution" (the mere presence of additional heterogeneous items in high-load situations). Theeuwes, Kramer, and Belopolsky [(2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 697-702.] independently questioned load theory by suggesting that attentional sets might also affect distractor interference. When high load and low load were intermixed, and participants could not prepare for the presentation that followed, both the low-load and high-load trials showed distractor interference. This result may also challenge the dilution account, which proposes a stimulus-driven mechanism. In the current study, we presented subjects with both fixed and mixed blocks, including a mix of dilution trials with low-load trials and with high-load trials. We thus separated the effect of dilution from load and tested the influence of attentional sets on each component. The results revealed that whereas perceptual load effects are influenced by attentional sets, the dilution component is not. This strengthens the notion that dilution is a stimulus-driven mechanism, which enables effective selectivity.