Researchers acknowledge the interplay between action and attention, but typically consider action as a response to successful attentional selection or the correlation of performance on separate action and attention tasks. We investigated how concurrent action with spatial monitoring affects the distribution of attention across the visual field. We embedded a functional field of view (FFOV) paradigm with concurrent central object recognition and peripheral target localization tasks in a simulated driving environment. Peripheral targets varied across 20–60 deg eccentricity at 11 radial spokes. Three conditions assessed the effects of visual complexity and concurrent action on the size and shape of the FFOV: (1) with no background, (2) with driving background, and (3) with driving background and vehicle steering. The addition of visual complexity slowed task performance and reduced the FFOV size but did not change the baseline shape. In contrast, the addition of steering produced not only shrinkage of the FFOV, but also changes in the FFOV shape. Nonuniform performance decrements occurred in proximal regions used for the central task and for steering, independent of interference from context elements. Multifocal attention models should consider the role of action and account for nonhomogeneities in the distribution of attention.
AllportA.MeyerD. (1993). Attention and control: Have we been asking the wrong questions? A critical review of twenty-five years. In MeyerD. E.KornblumS. (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 183–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AlvarezG. A. (2014). Attention and action. In OchsnerK.KosslynS. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive neuroscience: Core topics (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
AlvarezG. A.CavanaghP. (2005). Independent resources for attentional tracking in the left and right visual hemifields. Psychological Science, 16637–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01587.x.
4.
AlvarezG. A.FranconeriS. L. (2007). How many objects can you track? Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. Journal of Vision, 7 (13):14, 1–10. doi:10.1167/7.13.14.
5.
AwhE.PashlerH. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26834–846.
6.
BallK.BeardB. L.RoenkerD. L.MillerR. L.GriggsD. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 52210–2219.
7.
BallK.OwsleyC. (1993). The useful field of view test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 6471–79.
8.
BallK.OwsleyC.SloaneM. E.RoenkerD. L.BruniJ. R. (1993). Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 343110–3123.
9.
BartzA. E. (1976). Peripheral detection and central task complexity. Human Factors, 1863–69.
10.
BischofW. F.DilolloV. (1995). Motion and metacontrast with simultaneous onset of stimuli. Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 121623–1636. doi:10.1364/josaa.12.001623.
11.
BolstadC. A. (2001). Situation awareness: Does it change with age?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 45272–276. doi:10.1177/154193120104500401.
12.
CarlsonT. A.AlvarezG. A.CavanaghP. (2007). Quadrantic deficit reveals anatomical constraints on selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 10413496–13500. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702685104.
13.
DidnerR.SperlingG. (1980). Perceptual delay: A consequence of metacontrast and apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6235–243. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.6.2.235.
14.
DowningC. J.PinkerS. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In PosnerM. I.MarinO. S. M. (Eds.), Attention & performance XI: Mechanisms of attention (pp. 171–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
EngelF. L. (1971). Visual conspicuity, directed attention and retinal locus. Vision Research, 11563–576.
16.
EnnsJ. T.Di LolloV. (2000). What's new in visual masking?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4345–352. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01520-5.
17.
EriksenC. W.St JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40225–240.
18.
EriksenC. W.YehY. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual-field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11583–597. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.583.
19.
FecteauJ. H.MunozD. P. (2006). Salience, relevance, and firing: A priority map for target selection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10382–390. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.011.
20.
FranconeriS. L.AlvarezG. A.EnnsJ. T. (2007). How many locations can be selected at once?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 331003–1012. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1003.
21.
FranconeriS. L.HollingworthA.SimonsD. J. (2005). Do new objects capture attention?Psychological Science, 16275–281. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01528.x.
22.
GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2006). Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 321465–1478. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1465.
23.
GreenP.CullinaneB.ZylstraB.SmithD. (2003). Typical values for driving performance with emphasis on the standard deviation of lane position: A summary of the literature. Technical Report UMTRI-2003-42, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.
24.
HeinzeH.LuckHainesR. F. (1991). A breakdown in simultaneous information processing. In ObrechtG.StarkL. W. (Eds.), Presbyopia research (pp. 171–175). New York: Plenum Press.
25.
HerslundM.-B.JørgensenN. O. (2003). Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35885–891.
26.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 665–70.
27.
HorswillM. S.MarringtonS. A.McCulloughC. M.WoodJ.PachanaN. A.McWilliamJ.RaikosM. K. (2008). The hazard perception ability of older drivers. Journal of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences, 63P212–P218.
28.
IntriligatorJ.CavanaghP. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43171–216. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0755.
KircherA.UddmanM.SandinJ. (2002). Vehicle control and drowsiness. Linköping: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
31.
LaBergeD. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9371–379.
32.
LaBergeD.BrownV. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96101–124. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.101.
33.
LandM. F.HayhoeM. (2001). In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities?Vision Research, 413559–3565.
34.
MackA.RockI. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
McMainsS. A.SomersD. C. (2004). Multiple spotlights of attentional selection in human visual cortex. Neuron, 42677–686.
36.
MeriganW. H.MaunsellJ. H. R. (1993). How parallel are the primate visual pathways. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16369–402. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.16.030193.002101.
37.
MostS. B.SchollB. J.CliffordE. R.SimonsD. J. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review, 112217–242. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.1.217.
38.
NeumannO. (1990). Visual attention and action. In NeumannO.PrinzW. (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action (pp. 227–267). Berlin: Springer.
39.
ParkG. D.ReedC. L. (2010). Distribution of peripheral vision for a driving simulator functional field of view task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 541526–1530. doi:10.1177/154193121005401936.
40.
PashlerH. (1998). Attention. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
41.
PosnerM. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 323–25. doi:10.1080/00335558008248231.
42.
PylyshynZ. W.StormR. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3179–197.
43.
RantanenE. M.GoldbergJ. H. (1999). The effect of mental workload on the visual field size and shape. Ergonomics, 42816–834. doi:10.1080/001401399185315.
44.
RemingtonR.PierceL. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 35393–399.
45.
RogéJ.KielbasaL.MuzetA. (2002). Deformation of the useful visual field with state of vigilance, task priority, and central task complexity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 95118–130.
46.
SandersA. F. (1970). Some aspects of the selective process in the functional field of view. Ergonomics, 13101–117.
47.
ScalfP. E.ColcombeS. J.McCarleyJ. S.EricksonK. I.AlvaradoM.KimJ. S.KramerA. F. (2007). The neural correlates of an expanded functional field of view. Journal of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 6232–44.
48.
SchieberF.SchlorholtzB.McCallR. (2008). Visual requirements of vehicular guidance. In CastroC. (Ed.), Human factors of visual and cognitive performance in driving (pp. 31–50). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
49.
SimonsD. J.RensinkR. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 916–20. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006.
50.
TrickL. M.EnnsJ. T. (2009). A two-dimensional framework for understanding the role of attentional selection in driving. In CastroC. (Ed.), Human factors of visual and cognitive performance in friving (pp. 63–73). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
51.
WoodJ. M. (2002). Age and visual impairment decrease driving performance as measured on a closed-road circuit. Human Factors, 44428–494.
52.
WoodJ. M.ChaparroA.HicksonL.ThyerN.CarterP.HancockJ.YbarzabalF. (2006). The effect of auditory and visual distracters on the useful field of view: Implications for the driving task. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 474646–4650. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0306.
53.
YantisS. (1998). Control of visual attention. In PashlerH. (Ed.), Attention (pp. 223–256). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
54.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16121–134.
