The Identity-Location Binding Problem

Unequal allocation of overt and covert attention in Multiple Object Tracking

In many real-life contexts, where objects are moving around, we are often required to allocate our attention unequally between targets or regions of different importance. However, typical multiple object tracking (MOT) tasks, primarily investigate equal attention allocation as the likelihood of each target being probed is the same. In two experiments, we investigated whether participants can allocate attention unequally across regions of the visual field, using a MOT task where two regions were probed with either a high and low or with equal priority. Experiment 1 showed that for high-priority regions, accuracy (for direction of heading judgments) improved, and participants had more frequent and longer fixations in that region compared with a low-priority region. Experiment 2 showed that eye movements were functional in that they slightly improved accuracy when participants could freely move their eyes compared with when they had to centrally fixate. Replicating Experiment 1, we found better tracking performance for high compared with low-priority regions, in both the free and fixed viewing conditions, but the benefit was greater for the free viewing condition. Although unequal attention allocation is possible without eye movements, eye movements seem to improve tracking ability, presumably by allowing participants to fixate more in the high-priority region and get a better, foveal view of the objects. These findings can help us better understand how observers in real-life settings (e.g., CCTV monitoring, driving) can use their limited attentional capacity to allocate their attention unequally in a demand-based manner across different tracking regions.

How selective attention affects the detection of motion changes with peripheral vision in MOT

In sports, peripheral vision is expected to play an important role in tasks that demand distributed attention and motion-change detection. By using the Multiple-Object-Tracking (MOT) task, these demands were simulated in a well-controlled laboratory environment. Participants tracked four target out of ten moving objects (6 distractors) and pressed a button when one of the ten objects stopped. Detection rates for tracked targets were compared to detection rates of non-tracked distractors at eccentricities between 5° and 25°. The study's aim was to test how the location of attention affects peripheral motion detection. The results show a large attention effect because target stops were detected in 89 % and distractor stops only in 55 % of the trials. Distractor stops were more likely detected when they occurred closer to the fovea while target stops were detected at all eccentricities. That means, orienting attention at target objects facilitates the peripheral detection of their motion changes in monitoring tasks. Having distractors closer to the fovea increases the chance to also detect motion changes of unattended objects. On a theoretical level, results support a tracking mechanism with object-based attention, serial covert attention shifts and flexible but limited attentional resources. On a practical level, sports' experts should use their extensive knowledge to locate attention on most-relevant objects and reduce the eccentricity to other objects to detect motion changes of attended and unattended objects.

Model of Multiple Identity Tracking (MOMIT) 2.0: Resolving the serial vs. parallel controversy in tracking

The present study investigated whether during tracking of multiple moving objects with distinct identities only one identity is tracked at each moment (serial tracking) or whether multiple identities can be tracked simultaneously (parallel tracking). By adopting the gaze-contingent display change technique, we manipulated in real time the presence/absence of object identities during tracking. The data on performance accuracy revealed a serial tracking pattern for facial images and a parallel pattern for color discs: when tracking faces, the presence/absence of only the currently foveated identity impacted the performance, whereas when tracking colors, the presence of multiple identities across the visual field led to improved tracking performance. This pattern is consistent with the identifiability of the different types of objects in the visual field. The eye movements during MIT showed a bias towards visiting and dwelling on individual targets when facial identities were present and towards visiting the blank areas between targets when color identities were present. Nevertheless, the eye visits were predominately on individual targets regardless of the type of objects and the presence of object identities. The eye visits to targets were beneficial for target tracking, particularly in face tracking. We propose the Model of Multiple Identity Tracking (MOMIT) 2.0 which accounts for the results and reconcile the serial vs. parallel controversy. The model suggests that observers cooperatively use attention, eye movements, perception, and working memory for dynamic tracking. Tracking appears more serial when high-resolution information needs to be sampled and maintained for discriminating the targets, whereas it appears more parallel when low-resolution information is sufficient.

Cortical Circuit for Binding Object Identity and Location During Multiple-Object Tracking

Sustained multifocal attention for moving targets requires binding object identities with their locations. The brain mechanisms of identity-location binding during attentive tracking have remained unresolved. In 2 functional magnetic resonance imaging experiments, we measured participants’ hemodynamic activity during attentive tracking of multiple objects with equivalent (multiple-object tracking) versus distinct (multiple identity tracking, MIT) identities. Task load was manipulated parametrically. Both tasks activated large frontoparietal circuits. MIT led to significantly increased activity in frontoparietal and temporal systems subserving object recognition and working memory. These effects were replicated when eye movements were prohibited. MIT was associated with significantly increased functional connectivity between lateral temporal and frontal and parietal regions. We propose that coordinated activity of this network subserves identity-location binding during attentive tracking.

Brain Activation of Identity Switching in Multiple Identity Tracking Task

When different objects switch identities in the multiple identity tracking (MIT) task, viewers need to rebind objects’ identity and location, which requires attention. This rebinding helps people identify the regions targets are in (where they need to focus their attention) and inhibit unimportant regions (where distractors are). This study investigated the processing of attentional tracking after identity switching in an adapted MIT task. This experiment used three identity-switching conditions: a target-switching condition (where the target objects switched identities), a distractor-switching condition (where the distractor objects switched identities), and a no-switching condition. Compared to the distractor-switching condition, the target-switching condition elicited greater activation in the frontal eye fields (FEF), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and visual cortex. Compared to the no-switching condition, the target-switching condition elicited greater activation in the FEF, inferior frontal gyrus (pars orbitalis) (IFG-Orb), IPS, visual cortex, middle temporal lobule, and anterior cingulate cortex. Finally, the distractor-switching condition showed greater activation in the IFG-Orb compared to the no-switching condition. These results suggest that, in the target-switching condition, the FEF and IPS (the dorsal attention network) might be involved in goal-driven attention to targets during attentional tracking. In addition, in the distractor-switching condition, the activation of the IFG-Orb may indicate salient change that pulls attention away automatically.

Position tracking and identity tracking are separate systems: Evidence from eye movements

How do we track multiple moving objects in our visual environment? Some investigators argue that tracking is based on a parallel mechanism (e.g., Cavanagh & Alvarez, 2005; Pylyshyn, 1989), others argue that tracking contains a serial component (e.g. Holcombe & Chen, 2013; Oksama & Hyönä, 2008). In the present study, we put previous theories into a direct test by registering observers' eye movements when they tracked identical moving targets (the MOT task) or when they tracked distinct object identities (the MIT task). The eye movement technique is a useful tool to study whether overt focal attention is exploited during tracking. We found a qualitative difference between these tasks in terms of eye movements. When the participants tracked only position information (MOT), the observers had a clear preference for keeping their eyes fixed for a rather long time on the same screen position. In contrast, active eye behavior was observed when the observers tracked the identities of moving objects (MIT). The participants updated over four target identities with overt attention shifts. These data suggest that there are two separate systems involved in multiple object tracking. The position tracking system keeps track of the positions of the moving targets in parallel without the need of overt attention shifts in the form of eye movements. On the other hand, the identity tracking system maintains identity-location bindings in a serial fashion by utilizing overt attention shifts.