Feature singletons attract spatial attention independently of feature priming

Eye-specific attentional bias driven by selection history

Attention helps in selection among competing stimuli, but attentional selection also biases subsequent information processing as a prior experience. Previous studies have demonstrated that intertrial repetition of target features or locations facilitates perceptual processing as selection history guides attention. In the current study, we found that eye selection history in binocular rivalry induces eye-specific attentional bias. In four experiments, participants responded to the target presented at one of the locations on either eye. The results showed that the target was detected faster when presented to the same eye as in the previous trial under binocular rivalry. However, the effect of eye repetition was not observed when the interocular conflict was reduced by presenting stimuli to only one eye on each trial. Our result indicates that eye selection history can affect eye dominance during binocular rivalry as attention amplifies selected information among competing inputs. These findings suggest that prior experience of attentional deployment modulates subsequent information processing owing to the residual effect of attentional amplification.

Does feature intertrial priming guide attention? The jury is still out

Our search performance is strongly influenced by our past experience. In the lab, this influence has been demonstrated by investigating a variety of phenomena, including intertrial priming, statistical learning, and reward history, and collectively referred to as selection history. The resulting findings have led researchers to claim that selection history guides attention, thereby challenging the prevailing dichotomy, according to which top-down and bottom-up factors alone determine attentional priority. Here, we re-examine this claim with regard to one selection-history phenomenon, feature intertrial priming (aka priming of pop-out). We evaluate the evidence that specifically pertains to the role of feature intertrial priming in attentional guidance, rather than in later selective processes occurring after the target is found. We distinguish between the main experimental rationales, while considering the extent to which feature intertrial priming, as studied through different protocols, shares characteristics of top-down attention. We show that there is strong evidence that feature intertrial priming guides attention when the experimental protocol departs from the canonical paradigm and encourages observers to maintain the critical feature in visual working memory or to form expectations about the upcoming target. By contrast, the current evidence regarding the standard feature intertrial priming phenomenon is inconclusive. We propose directions for future research and suggest that applying the methodology used here in order to re-evaluate of the role of other selection history phenomena in attentional guidance should clarify the mechanisms underlying the strong impact of past experience on visual search performance.

Asymmetries in visual acuity around the visual field

Human vision is heterogeneous around the visual field. At a fixed eccentricity, performance is better along the horizontal than the vertical meridian and along the lower than the upper vertical meridian. These asymmetric patterns, termed performance fields, have been found in numerous visual tasks, including those mediated by contrast sensitivity and spatial resolution. However, it is unknown whether spatial resolution asymmetries are confined to the cardinal meridians or whether and how far they extend into the upper and lower hemifields. Here, we measured visual acuity at isoeccentric peripheral locations (10 deg eccentricity), every 15° of polar angle. On each trial, observers judged the orientation (± 45°) of one of four equidistant, suprathreshold grating stimuli varying in spatial frequency (SF). On each block, we measured performance as a function of stimulus SF at 4 of 24 isoeccentric locations. We estimated the 75%-correct SF threshold, SF cutoff point (i.e., chance-level), and slope of the psychometric function for each location. We found higher SF estimates (i.e., better acuity) for the horizontal than the vertical meridian and for the lower than the upper vertical meridian. These asymmetries were most pronounced at the cardinal meridians and decreased gradually as the angular distance from the vertical meridian increased. This gradual change in acuity with polar angle reflected a shift of the psychometric function without changes in slope. The same pattern was found under binocular and monocular viewing conditions. These findings advance our understanding of visual processing around the visual field and help constrain models of visual perception.

Inherent Importance of Early Visual Features in Attraction of Human Attention

Local contrasts attract human attention to different areas of an image. Studies have shown that orientation, color, and intensity are some basic visual features which their contrasts attract our attention. Since these features are in different modalities, their contribution in the attraction of human attention is not easily comparable. In this study, we investigated the importance of these three features in the attraction of human attention in synthetic and natural images. Choosing 100% percent detectable contrast in each modality, we studied the competition between different features. Psychophysics results showed that, although single features can be detected easily in all trials, when features were presented simultaneously in a stimulus, orientation always attracts subject's attention. In addition, computational results showed that orientation feature map is more informative about the pattern of human saccades in natural images. Finally, using optimization algorithms we quantified the impact of each feature map in construction of the final saliency map.

When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return?

At some point, spatial priming effects more faithfully reflect response selection processes than they do attentional orienting or sensory processes. Findings from the spatial cueing literature suggest that two factors may be critical: (1) the amount of identity processing that is required in order to respond correctly (feature-based response hypothesis), and (2) the amount of spatial processing that is required in order to respond correctly (space-based response hypothesis). To test the first hypothesis, we manipulated whether observers made single keypress detection or two-choice localization responses to serially presented stimuli in peripheral vision and whether stimulus identity information processing was necessary before responding. Responses were always slowest when the target location repeated, consistent with an attentional orienting bias independent of keypress responding (i.e., inhibition of return; IOR). The localization procedure revealed a subtle additional cost for changing the target location and repeating a response, consistent with a response-related episodic retrieval effect predicted by the Theory of Event Coding (TEC). Neither effect was modulated by the need to discriminate features. To test the second hypothesis, we made spatial processing indispensable to response selection by requiring a decision between a detection and localization response, depending on where the target appeared. IOR was eliminated for detection, but not localization, responses, consistent with the TEC. Collectively, the findings suggest that the amount of space-based, but not feature-based, processing that is required to determine a response is responsible for the response retrieval effects that can co-occur with IOR.

Implicitly and explicitly encoded features can guide attention in free viewing

It is well known that priming, probably by the contents of working memory, can influence subsequent visual task performance. How ubiquitous is this effect? Can incidental exposure to visual stimuli influence the deployment of attention when there is no explicit visual task? Results of two experiments show that a preceding stimulus can influence free-viewing eye movements. A simple change detection task was used as the cover task. The initial memory display was the priming display, while subsequent filler display constituted the free-viewing display of our interest. In Experiment 1, subjects were asked to memorize the number of items in the priming display. Subjects were not explicitly instructed to attend to features, but these might still be implicitly encoded. In Experiment 2, a more complex change detection task required subjects to memorize the number, color, and shape of priming items. Here, prime features were attended and, presumably, explicitly encoded. We were interested to know whether incidentally or explicitly encoded features of prime items would influence attention distribution in the filler display. In both experiments, items sharing color and shape with the prime were attended more often than predicted by chance. Items sharing neither color nor shape were attended less often. Items sharing either color or shape (not both) could also attract attention showing that the priming need not be based on a bound representation of the primed item. Effects were stronger in Experiment 2. No intention or top-down control appears to be needed to produce this priming.

Feature-based attention across saccades: Pop-out in color search is spatiotopic

Our perception of the world remains stable despite the retinal shifts that occur with each saccade. The role of spatial attention in matching pre- to postsaccadic visual information has been well established, but the role of feature-based attention remains unclear. In this study, we examined the transsaccadic processing of a color pop-out target. Participants made a saccade towards a neutral target and performed a search task on a peripheral array presented once the saccade landed. A similar array was presented just before the saccade and we analyzed what aspect of this preview benefitted the postsaccadic search task. We assessed the preview effect in the spatiotopic and retinotopic reference frames, and the potential transfer of feature selectivity across the saccade. In the first experiment, the target and distractor colors remained identical for the preview and the postsaccadic array and performance improved. The largest benefit was observed at the spatiotopic location. In the second experiment, the target and distractor colors were swapped across the saccade. All responses were slowed but the cost was least at the spatiotopic location. Our results show that the preview attracted spatial attention to the target location, which was then remapped, and suggest that previewed features, specifically colors, were transferred across the saccade. Furthermore, the preview induced a spatiotopic advantage regardless of whether the target switched color or not, suggesting that spatiotopy was established independently of feature processing. Our results support independent priming effects of features versus location and underline the role of feature-based selection in visual stability.

Top-Down Prioritization of Salient Items May Produce the So-Called Stimulus-Driven Capture

The current study proposes that top-down attentional prioritization of salient items may produce the so-called stimulus-driven capture. To test this proposal, the “expectation-based paradigm” was designed on the basis of a visual search task. In Experiment 1, a task-irrelevant singleton frame was presented at the same location in 70% of the trials. The target was either presented at chance level within the singleton location, or away from it. In line with the singleton capture phenomenon, participants were faster in identifying the target when it appeared in the singleton location compared to non-singleton locations. However, leaving out the singleton frame in 30% of the trials led to a similar effect; participants were faster in identifying the target when it appeared in the expected singleton location compared to expected non-singletons locations (a “quasi-capture” effect). These results suggest that the participants allocated their attention to the expected singleton location, rather than that the singleton itself captured attention. In Experiment 2, the same task-irrelevant color singleton was presented in a random position in 70% of the trials. This color frame was shown as a non-singleton in all of the 30% singleton-absent multicolored trials. A similar facilitation effect was obtained when the target appeared in the expected singleton color frame compared to other frames, in singleton-absent trials as in singleton-present trials. These results further support the idea that instances of singleton capture can be explained by top-down attentional shifts toward singleton items. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed. Mostly, the study calls to consider the possibility that all sources of attentional control may be represented by a continuous variable of top-down control, including the category of “physical salience.”