LaBerge and his co-workers (e.g., LaBerge & Brown, 1986, 1989; LaBerge, Carlson, Williams, & Bunney, 1997) used an experimental method consisting of three rapid successive displays, each requiring a difficult letter discrimination, to show that visual attention is best accounted for with an activity-distribution model rather than a moving-spotlight model. The present study sought to further this line of investigation by inserting exogenous cues and targets, often used in studies that have found support for the moving-spotlight model, into the basic method used by LeBerge and colleagues. The results from three experiments were consistent with the activity-distribution model and not with the moving-spotlight model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaylisG.DriverJ. (1989). Movement and visual attention: The spotlight metaphor breaks down.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15, 448–456.
2.
BerryG. A.KleinR. (1993). Does motion-induced grouping modulate the flanker compatibility effect? A failure to replicate Driver and Baylis.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology47, 714–729.
3.
BriandK. A.KleinR. M. (1987). Is Posner's “beam” the same as Treisman's “glue”?: On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13, 2228–241.
4.
CastielloU.UmiltàC. (1992). Splitting focal attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18, 837–848.
5.
DuebelH.SchneiderW. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism.Vision Research36, 1827–1837.
6.
EglyR.DriverL.RafalR. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General123, 161–177.
7.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
8.
EriksenC. W.YehY. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance11, 5583–597.
9.
EriksenC. W.MurphyT. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence.Perception & Psychophysics42, 3299–305.
10.
FischerM. H. (1997). Attention allocation during manual movement preparation and execution.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology9, 17–51.
11.
HendersonJ. M.MacquistanA. D. (1993). The spatial distribution of attention following an exogenous cue.Perception and Psychophysics53, 2221–230.
12.
HodgsonT. L.MüllerH. J. (1995). Evidence relating to premotor theories of visuospatial attention.Eye movement research: Mechanisms, processes and applications.FindlayJ. M.WalkerR.KentridgeR. M.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science305–316.
13.
HoffmanJ. E.SubramaniamB. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements.Perception & Psychophysics57, 787–795.
14.
KramerA. F.HahnS. (1995). Splitting the beam: Distribution of attention over noncontinguous regions of the visual field.Psychological Science6, 6381–386.
15.
KwakH. W.DagenbachD.EgethH. (1991). Further evidence for a time-independent shift of the focus of attention.Perception & Psychophysics49, 473–480.
16.
LaBergeD.BrownV. (1986). Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect.Perception and Psychophysics40, 3188–200.
17.
LaBergeD.BrownV. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification.Psychological Review96, 1101–124.
18.
LaBergeD.CarlsonR. L.WilliamsJ. K.BunneyB. G. (1997). Shifting attention in visual space: Tests of moving-spotlight models versus an activity-distribution model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 51380–1392.
19.
McCormickP. A.KleinR. M. (1990). The spatial distribution of attention during covert visual orienting.Acta Psychologica75, 225–242.
20.
MüllerH. J.FindlayJ. M. (1987). Sensitivity and criterion effects in the spatial cuing of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics42, 383–399.
21.
PosnerM. L.CohenY. (1984). Components of visual orienting.Attention and performance X.BoumaH.BouwhuisD. G.Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd531–556.
22.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R.DavidsonB J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General109, 2160–174.
23.
RemingtonR.PierceL. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention.Perception & Psychophysics35, 393–399.
24.
RizzolattiG.RiggioL.DascolaI.UmiltàC. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favour of a premotor theory of attention.Neuropsychologia25, 31–40.
25.
ShawM. L.ShawP. (1977). Optimal allocation of resources to spatial locations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3, 201–211.
26.
ShepherdM.FindlayJ. M.HockeyR. J. (1986). The relationship between eye movements and spatial attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology38A, 475–491.
27.
ShulmanG. L.RemingtonR. W.MacLeanJ. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 3522–526.
28.
SperlingG.WeichselgartnerE. (1995). Episodic theory of the dynamics of visual attention.Psychological Review102, 503–532.
29.
TsalY. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance9, 4523–530.
30.
YantisS.HillstromA. P. (1994). Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects.journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 95–107.
31.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual searc.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance10, 601–621.
