The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hermann J Muller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
probability cueing of singleton distractor locations in visual search priority map versus dimension based inhibition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2019Co-Authors: Bei Zhang, Heinrich René Liesefeld, Fredrik Allenmark, Zhuanghua Shi, Hermann J MullerAbstract:Observers can learn the likely locations of salient Distractors in visual search, reducing their potential to cause interference. Although there is agreement that this involves positional suppression of the likely distractor location(s), it is contentious at which stage the suppression operates: the search-guiding priority map, which integrates feature-contrast signals (e.g., generated by a red among green or a diamond among circular items) across dimensions, or the distractor-defining dimension. On the latter, dimension-based account (Sauter, Liesefeld, Zehetleitner, & Muller, 2018), processing of, say, a shape-defined target should be unaffected by distractor suppression when the distractor is defined by color, because in this case only color signals would be suppressed. At odds with this, Wang and Theeuwes (2018a) found slowed processing of the target when it appeared at the likely (vs. an unlikely) distractor location, consistent with priority-map-based suppression. Adopting their paradigm, the present study replicated this target location effect. Crucially, however, changing the paradigm by making the target appear as likely at the frequent as at any of the rare distractor locations and making the distractor/nondistractor color assignment consistent abolished the target location effect, without impacting the reduced interference for Distractors at the frequent location. These findings support a flexible locus of spatial distractor suppression-priority-map- or dimension-based-depending on the prominence of distractor cues provided by the paradigm. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
-
learning to suppress salient Distractors in the target dimension region based inhibition is persistent and transfers to Distractors in a nontarget dimension
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marian Sauter, Heinrich René Liesefeld, Hermann J MullerAbstract:It was shown previously that observers can learn to exploit an uneven spatial distribution of singleton Distractors to better shield visual search from Distractors in the frequent versus the rare region (i.e., distractor location probability cueing; Sauter, Liesefeld, Zehetleitner, & Muller, 2018). However, with Distractors defined in the same dimension as the search target, this comes at the cost of impaired detection of targets in the frequent region. In 3 experiments, the present study investigated the learning and unlearning of distractor location probability cueing and the carry-over of cueing effects from same- to different-dimension Distractors. All experiments involved a visual search for an orientation-defined singleton target in the presence of either a more salient color-defined (different-dimension) or orientation-defined (same-dimension) distractor singleton, and all were divided into a learning session and a subsequent test session. The present study showed that with same-dimension (but not with different-dimension) Distractors, the acquired cueing effect persists over a 24-h break between the training and test session and takes several hundred trials to be unlearned when the distribution is changed to even (50%/50%) in the test session. Furthermore, the target location effect as well as (somewhat less marked) the cueing effect carries over from learning with same-dimension Distractors to test with different-dimension Distractors. These carry-over effects are in line with the assumption that the learned distractor suppression effects are implemented at different levels in the hierarchical architecture of search guidance: the saliency map with same-dimension Distractors versus a dimension-based level below the saliency map with different-dimension Distractors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
-
Region-based shielding of visual search from salient Distractors: Target detection is impaired with same- but not different-dimension Distractors
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2018Co-Authors: Marian Sauter, Michael Zehetleitner, Heinrich René Liesefeld, Hermann J MullerAbstract:Shielding visual search against interference from salient Distractors becomes more efficient over time for display regions where Distractors appear more frequently, rather than only rarely Goschy, Bakos, Müller, & Zehetleitner ( Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1195, 2014 ). We hypothesized that the locus of this learned distractor probability-cueing effect depends on the dimensional relationship of the to-be-inhibited distractor relative to the to-be-attended target. If the distractor and target are defined in different visual dimensions (e.g., a color-defined distractor and orientation-defined target, as in Goschy et al. ( Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1195, 2014 ), Distractors may be efficiently suppressed by down-weighting the feature contrast signals in the distractor-defining dimension Zehetleitner, Goschy, & Müller ( Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38: 941–957, 2012 ), with stronger down-weighting being applied to the frequent- than to the rare-distractor region. However, given dimensionally coupled feature contrast signal weighting (cf. Müller J, Heller & Ziegler ( Perception & Psychophysics 57:1–17, 1995 ), this dimension-(down-)weighting strategy would not be effective when the target and the Distractors are defined within the same dimension. In this case, suppression may operate differently: by inhibiting the entire frequent-distractor region on the search-guiding master saliency map. The downside of inhibition at this level is that, although it reduces distractor interference in the inhibited (frequent-distractor) region, it also impairs target processing in that region—even when no distractor is actually present in the display. This predicted qualitative difference between same- and different-dimension Distractors was confirmed in the present study (with 184 participants), thus furthering our understanding of the functional architecture of search guidance, especially regarding the mechanisms involved in shielding search from the interference of Distractors that consistently occur in certain display regions.
-
salience based selection attentional capture by Distractors less salient than the target
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Michael Zehetleitner, Hermann J Muller, Anja Isabel Koch, Harriet GoschyAbstract:Current accounts of attentional capture predict the most salient stimulus to be invariably selected first. However, existing salience and visual search models assume noise in the map computation or selection process. Consequently, they predict the first selection to be stochastically dependent on salience, implying that attention could even be captured first by the second most salient (instead of the most salient) stimulus in the field. Yet, capture by less salient Distractors has not been reported and salience-based selection accounts claim that the distractor has to be more salient in order to capture attention. We tested this prediction using an empirical and modeling approach of the visual search distractor paradigm. For the empirical part, we manipulated salience of target and distractor parametrically and measured reaction time interference when a distractor was present compared to absent. Reaction time interference was strongly correlated with distractor salience relative to the target. Moreover, even Distractors less salient than the target captured attention, as measured by reaction time interference and oculomotor capture. In the modeling part, we simulated first selection in the distractor paradigm using behavioral measures of salience and considering the time course of selection including noise. We were able to replicate the result pattern we obtained in the empirical part. We conclude that each salience value follows a specific selection time distribution and attentional capture occurs when the selection time distributions of target and distractor overlap. Hence, selection is stochastic in nature and attentional capture occurs with a certain probability depending on relative salience.
-
attentional capture by salient color singleton Distractors is modulated by top down dimensional set
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2009Co-Authors: Hermann J Muller, Thomas Geyer, Michael Zehetleitner, Joseph KrummenacherAbstract:Three experiments examined whether salient color singleton Distractors automatically interfere with the detection singleton form targets in visual search (e.g., J. Theeuwes, 1992), or whether the degree of interference is top-down modulable. In Experiments 1 and 2, observers started with a pure block of trials, which contained either never a distractor or always a distractor (0% or 100% Distractors)--varying the opportunity to learn distractor suppression. In the subsequent trial blocks, the proportion of Distractors was systematically varied (within-subjects factor in Experiment 1, between-subjects factor in Experiment 2)--varying the incentive to use distractor suppression. In Experiment 3, observers started with 100% Distractors in the first block and were presented with "rare" color or luminance Distractors, in addition to "frequent" color Distractors, in the second block. The results revealed distractor interference to vary as a function of both the initial experience with Distractors and the incentive to suppress them: the interference was larger without relevant practice and with a lesser incentive to apply suppression (Experiments 1-3). This set of findings suggests that distractor interference is top-down modulable.
Nilli Lavie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
attentional capture by entirely irrelevant Distractors
Visual Cognition, 2008Co-Authors: Sophie Forster, Nilli LavieAbstract:Studies of attentional capture often question whether an irrelevant distractor will capture attention or be successfully ignored (e.g., Folk & Remington, 1998). Here we establish a new measure of attentional capture by Distractors that are entirely irrelevant to the task in terms of visual appearance, meaning, and location (colourful cartoon figures presented in the periphery while subjects perform a central letter-search task). The presence of such a distractor significantly increased search RTs, suggesting it captured attention despite its task-irrelevance. Such attentional capture was found regardless of whether the search target was a singleton or not, and for both frequent and infrequent Distractors, as well as for meaningful and meaningless distractor stimuli, although the cost was greater for infrequent and meaningful Distractors. These results establish stimulus-driven capture by entirely irrelevant Distractors and thus provide a demonstration of attentional capture that is more akin to distraction by irrelevant stimuli in daily life.
-
Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant Distractors: The role of load
J EXP PSYCHOL-APPL, 2008Co-Authors: Nilli LavieAbstract:In daily life (e.g., in the work environment) people are often distracted by stimuli that are clearly irrelevant to the current task and should be ignored. In contrast, much applied distraction research has focused on task interruptions by information that requires a response and therefore cannot be ignored. Moreover, the most commonly used laboratory measures of distractibility (e.g., in the response-competition and attentional -capture paradigms), typically involve Distractors that are task relevant (e.g., through response associations or location). A series of experiments assessed interference effects from stimuli that are entirely unrelated to the current task, comparing the effects of perceptual load on task-irrelevant and task-relevant (response competing) Distractors. The results showed that an entirely irrelevant distractor can interfere with task performance to the same extent as a response-competing distractor and that, as with other types of Distractors, the interfering effects of the irrelevant Distractors can be eliminated with high perceptual load in the relevant task. These findings establish a new laboratory measure of a form of distractibility common to everyday life and highlight load as an important determinant of such distractibility.
-
look here but ignore what you see effects of Distractors at fixation
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2005Co-Authors: Diane M Beck, Nilli LavieAbstract:Distractor interference effects were compared between Distractors in the periphery and those placed at fixation. In 6 experiments, the authors show that fixation Distractors produce larger interference effects than peripheral Distractors. However, the fixation distractor effects are modulated by perceptual load to the same extent as are peripheral distractor effects (Experiments 1 and 2). Experiment 3 showed that fixation Distractors are harder to filter out than peripheral Distractors. The larger distractor effects at fixation are not due to the cortical magnification of foveal stimuli (Experiments 4 and 5), nor can they be attributed to cuing by the fixation point (Experiment 2), the lower predictability or greater location certainty of fixation Distractors (Experiment 5), or their being in a central position (Experiment 6). The authors suggest that preferential access to attention renders fixation Distractors harder to ignore than peripheral Distractors.
-
load theory of selective attention and cognitive control
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2004Co-Authors: Nilli Lavie, Aleksandra Hirst, Jan W De Fockert, Essi VidingAbstract:A load theory of attention in which distractor rejection depends on the level and type of load involved in current processing was tested. A series of experiments demonstrates that whereas high perceptual load reduces distractor interference, working memory load or dual-task coordination load increases distractor interference. These findings suggest 2 selective attention mechanisms: a perceptual selection mechanism serving to reduce distractor perception in situations of high perceptual load that exhaust perceptual capacity in processing relevant stimuli and a cognitive control mechanism that reduces interference from perceived Distractors as long as cognitive control functions are available to maintain current priorities (low cognitive load). This theory resolves the long-standing early versus late selection debate and clarifies the role of cognitive control in selective attention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
-
the role of perceptual load in negative priming
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000Co-Authors: Nilli Lavie, Elaine FoxAbstract:Negative priming (NP) effects from irrelevant Distractors were assessed as a function of perceptual load in the processing of prime targets. Participants searched for a target letter among a varying number of nontarget letters in the center of the display and ignored an irrelevant peripheral distractor. NP from this distractor was found to depend on the relevant search set size, decreasing as this set size was increased. The authors conclude that exhausting attention in relevant processing reduces irrelevant processing (e.g., N. Lavie, 1995), leaving less distractor processing to produce NP. This conclusion is consistent with recent reactive inhibition views for NP (e.g., G. Houghton, S. P. Tipper, B. Weaver, & D. I. Shore, 1996).
Alfonso Caramazza - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
orthographic and phonological effects in the picture word interference paradigm evidence from a logographic language
Applied Psycholinguistics, 2009Co-Authors: Alfonso CaramazzaAbstract:One important finding with the picture–word interference paradigm is that picture-naming performance is facilitated by the presentation of a distractor (e.g., CAP) formally related to the picture name (e.g., “cat”). In two picture-naming experiments we investigated the nature of such form facilitation effect with Mandarin Chinese, separating the effects of phonology and orthography. Significant facilitation effects were observed both when Distractors were only orthographically or only phonologically related to the targets. The orthographic effect was overall stronger than the phonological effect. These findings suggest that the classic form facilitation effect in picture–word interference is a mixed effect with multiple loci: it cannot be attributed merely to the nonlexical activation of the target phonological segments from the visual input of the distractor. It seems instead that orthographically only related Distractors facilitate the lexical selection process of picture naming, and phonologically only related Distractors facilitate the retrieval of target phonological segments.
-
lexical selection is not by competition a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture word interference paradigm
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 2007Co-Authors: Bradford Z Mahon, Albert Costa, Robin L Peterson, Kimberly A Vargas, Alfonso CaramazzaAbstract:The dominant view in the field of lexical access in speech production maintains that selection of a word becomes more difficult as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase—selection by competition. The authors tested this prediction in two sets of experiments. First, the authors show that participants are faster to name pictures of objects (e.g., “bed”) in the context of semantically related verb Distractors (e.g., sleep) compared with unrelated verb Distractors (e.g., shoot). In the second set of experiments, the authors show that target naming latencies (e.g., “horse”) are, if anything, faster for within-category semantically close distractor words (e.g., zebra) than for within-category semantically far distractor words (e.g., whale). In the context of previous research, these data ground a new empirical generalization: As distractor words become semantically closer to the target concepts—all else being equal—target naming is facilitated. This fact means that lexical selection does not involve competition, and consequently, that the semantic interference effect does not reflect a lexical level process. This conclusion has important implications for models of lexical access and interpretations of Stroop-like interference effects.
-
level of categorisation effect a novel effect in the picture word interference paradigm
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2003Co-Authors: Albert Costa, Bradford Z Mahon, Virginia Savova, Alfonso CaramazzaAbstract:In four experiments we explored the effects of two variables in the picture-word interference paradigm: semantic relatedness and the level of categorisation of Distractors relative to pictures' names. Experiment 1 addressed whether the contrasting effects of semantically related Distractors in category- and basic-level naming have a methodological origin (i.e., differences in the number of responses and the number of repetitions of responses between experiments). Experiments 2, 3 and 4 explored the effect of the level of categorisation of distractor words relative to the level of categorisation of the response, independent of semantic relatedness. Two main results are reported. First, the effect of semantically related Distractors depends on the level of categorisation at which the response has to be given. Second, semantically unrelated Distractors at the same level of categorisation as that of the response interfere more than unrelated Distractors at a different level of categorisation. The implications...
Katsumi Watanabe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of visual working memory and distractor resistance in relation to academic performance
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Hiroyuki Tsubomi, Katsumi WatanabeAbstract:Visual working memory (VWM) enables active maintenance of goal-relevant visual information in a readily accessible state. The storage capacity of VWM is severely limited, often as few as 3 simple items. Thus, it is crucial to restrict distractor information from consuming VWM capacity. The current study investigated how VWM storage and distractor resistance develop during childhood in relation to academic performance in the classroom. Elementary school children (7- to 12-year-olds) and adults (total N=140) completed a VWM task with and without visual/verbal Distractors during the retention period. The results showed that VWM performance with and without Distractors developed at similar rates until reaching adult levels at 10years of age. In addition, higher VWM performance without Distractors was associated with higher academic scores in literacy (reading and writing), mathematics, and science for the younger children (7- to 9-year-olds), whereas these academic scores for the older children (10- to 12-year-olds) were associated with VWM performance with visual Distractors. Taken together, these results suggest that VWM storage and distractor resistance develop at a similar rate, whereas their contributions to academic performance differ with age.
-
temporal dissociation between category based and item based processes in rejecting Distractors
Psychological Research-psychologische Forschung, 2009Co-Authors: Atsunori Ariga, Katsumi WatanabeAbstract:Presenting a target-like distractor in an RSVP task deteriorates the detection of a trailing target, because the visual system has difficulties in rejecting the erroneously accepted distractor. We investigated whether the rejection process is influenced by observers’ knowledge regarding possible Distractors. Observers identified a letter (target) embedded in a stream of line patterns, rejecting a preceding distractor (digit). We informed the observers about either the category of Distractors (“digit”) or the identity of the distractor (e.g., “5”). The Distractors with certain distractor–target lags increased identification errors, indicating that the distractor rejection process temporarily interfered with the target identification. When the observers knew the distractor identity, the rejection process started later than when they knew only the distractor category. These results suggest that the rejection process may operate at either the category or the individual-item level; however, the setting of the rejection level is not under the observers’ control.
-
effect of target distractor similarity on fef visual selection in the absence of the target
Experimental Brain Research, 2003Co-Authors: Takashi R. Sato, Kirk G Thompson, Katsumi Watanabe, Jeffrey D SchallAbstract:We tested the hypothesis that frontal eye field (FEF) visual activity integrates visual information with a template of a target by examining whether a target that is not present in a search display influences the target selection in FEF. Neural activity was recorded in FEF of macaque monkeys performing visual search for a singleton target defined by color or direction of motion. The target remained constant throughout, but not across experimental sessions. Trials with Distractors dissimilar to the target were interleaved with trials with Distractors similar to the target. The hypothesis was tested by measuring the magnitude of activity in randomly interleaved trials with the target absent and only Distractors in the display. We found that the response to the Distractors was significantly greater when presented with displays consisting of Distractors that resembled the absent target than when presented with displays consisting of Distractors most different from the absent target. The influence of target-distractor similarity on FEF activity was also observed when the target was present, as reported previously. These data suggest that a template of the absent target can influence the selection process in FEF. This provides more direct evidence that FEF integrates visual information and knowledge of the target to determine the goal of a saccade.
Jeffrey D Schall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of search efficiency on surround suppression during visual selection in frontal eye field
Journal of Neurophysiology, 2004Co-Authors: Jeffrey D Schall, Kirk G Thompson, Takashi R. Sato, Amanda A Vaughn, Chihung JuanAbstract:Previous research has shown that visually responsive neurons in the frontal eye field of macaque monkeys select the target for a saccade during efficient, pop-out visual search through suppression of the representation of the nontarget Distractors. For a fraction of these neurons, the magnitude of this distractor suppression varied with the proximity of the target to the receptive field, exhibiting more suppression of the distractor representation when the target was nearby than when the target was distant. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the variation of distractor suppression related to target proximity varied with target-distractor feature similarity. The effect of target proximity on distractor suppression did not vary with target-distractor similarity and therefore may be an endogenous property of the selection process.
-
effect of target distractor similarity on fef visual selection in the absence of the target
Experimental Brain Research, 2003Co-Authors: Takashi R. Sato, Kirk G Thompson, Katsumi Watanabe, Jeffrey D SchallAbstract:We tested the hypothesis that frontal eye field (FEF) visual activity integrates visual information with a template of a target by examining whether a target that is not present in a search display influences the target selection in FEF. Neural activity was recorded in FEF of macaque monkeys performing visual search for a singleton target defined by color or direction of motion. The target remained constant throughout, but not across experimental sessions. Trials with Distractors dissimilar to the target were interleaved with trials with Distractors similar to the target. The hypothesis was tested by measuring the magnitude of activity in randomly interleaved trials with the target absent and only Distractors in the display. We found that the response to the Distractors was significantly greater when presented with displays consisting of Distractors that resembled the absent target than when presented with displays consisting of Distractors most different from the absent target. The influence of target-distractor similarity on FEF activity was also observed when the target was present, as reported previously. These data suggest that a template of the absent target can influence the selection process in FEF. This provides more direct evidence that FEF integrates visual information and knowledge of the target to determine the goal of a saccade.
