Investigations into the persistence of top-down control settings do not accurately reflect the nature of dynamic tasks. They typically involve extended practice with an initial task, and this initial task usually shares similar stimuli with a second task. Recent work shows that visual attention and search can be affected by limited exposure to a preceding, unrelated task, and the current study explored the temporal characteristics of this “carry-over” effect. Thirty-four participants completed one, four, or eight simple letter searches and then searched a natural scene. The spatial layout of letters influenced spread of search in the pictures, and this was further impacted by the time spent in the initial task, yet the carry-over effect diminished quickly. The results have implications for theories of top-down control and models that attempt to predict search in natural scenes. They are also relevant to real-world tasks in which performance is closely related to visual attention and search.
AtchleyP., AtwoodS., & BoultonA. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 134–142.
2.
BaddeleyR. J., & TatlerB. W. (2006). High frequency edges (but not contrast) predict where we fixate: A Bayesian system identification analysis. Vision Research, 46, 2824–2833.
3.
BrockmoleJ. R., & HendersonJ. M. (2006). Using real-world scenes as contextual cues for search. Visual Cognition, 13, 99–108.
4.
BundesenC. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.
5.
CastelhanoM. S., & HendersonJ. M. (2007). Initial scene representations facilitate eye movement guidance in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 753–763.
6.
ChunM. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 170–178.
7.
CrundallD. E., & UnderwoodG. (1998). Effects of experience and processing demands on visual information acquisition in drivers. Ergonomics, 41, 448–458.
8.
DickinsonC. A., & IntraubH. (2009). Spatial asymmetries in viewing and remembering scenes: Consequences of an attentional bias. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 71, 1251–1262.
9.
EhingerK. A., Hidalgo-SoteloB., TorralbaA., & OlivaA. (2009). Modeling search for people in 900 scenes: A combined source model of eye guidance. Visual Cognition, 17, 945–978.
10.
EinhäuserW., SpainM., & PeronaP. (2008). Objects predict fixations better than early saliency. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–26.
11.
FolkC. L., RemingtonR. W., & JohnstonJ. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
12.
FoulshamT., GrayA., NasiopoulosE., & KingstoneA. (2013). Leftward biases in picture scanning and line bisection: A gaze contingent window study. Vision Research, 78, 14–25.
13.
FoulshamT., & KingstoneA. (2010). Asymmetries in the direction of saccades during perception of scenes and fractals: Effects of image type and image features. Vision Research, 50, 779–795.
14.
FoulshamT., & UnderwoodG. (2008). What can saliency models predict about eye movements? Spatial and sequential aspects of fixations during encoding and recognition. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–17.
15.
HarrisonM. A. (2011). College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1516–1520.
16.
HendersonJ. M., WeeksP. A.Jr., & HollingworthA. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 210–228.
17.
HillsP. J., SullivanA. J., & PakeJ. M. (2012). Abberant first fixations when looking at inverted faces in various poses: The results of the centre-of-gravity effect?British Journal of Psychology, 103, 520–538.
18.
IttiL., & KochC. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40, 1489–1506.
19.
JiangY. V., & SwallowK. M. (2013). Spatial reference frame of incidentally learned attention. Cognition, 126, 378–390.
20.
JiangY. V., SwallowK. M., & RosenbaumG. M. (2013). Guidance of spatial attention by incidental learning and endogenous cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 39, 285–297.
21.
JonidesJ., & YantisS. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 346–354.
22.
KochC., & UllmanS. (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention: Towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4, 219–227.
23.
KonstantopoulosP., ChapmanP., & CrundallD. (2010). Driver's visual attention as a function of driving experience and visibility. Using a driving simulator to explore drivers’ eye movements in day, night and rain driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 47, 827–834.
24.
LeberA. B., & EgethH. E. (2006). Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set. Visual Cognition, 14, 565–583.
25.
LeberA. B., KawaharaJ. I., & GabariY. (2009). Long-term, abstract learning of attentional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1385–1397.
26.
LienM., RuthruffE., & JohnstonJ. C. (2010). Attentional capture with rapidly changing attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1–16.
27.
LienM., RuthruffE., RemingtonR. W., & JohnstonJ. C. (2005). On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task come of the time or some of the task all the time?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 299–315.
28.
LongmanC. S., LavricA., & MonsellS. (2013). More attention to attention? An eye-tracking investigation of perceptual attributes during a task switch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1142–1151.
29.
MalcolmG. L., & HendersonJ. M. (2010). Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–11.
30.
MaljkovicV., & NakayamaK. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory and Cognition, 22, 657–672.
31.
MayrU., KuhnsD., & RieterM. (2013). Eye movements reveal dynamics of task control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 489–509.
32.
MourantR. R., & RockwellT. H. (1970). Mapping eye movement patterns to the visual scene in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 12, 81–87.
33.
ParkhurstD. J., & NieburE. (2003). Scene content selected by active vision. Spatial Vision, 16, 125–154.
34.
PrattJ., SekulerA. B., & McAuliffeJ. (2001). The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 8, 33–46.
35.
RogersR. D., & MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
36.
SerenoA. B. (1992). Programming saccades: The role of attention. In RaynerK. (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 89–107). New York: Springer.
37.
ShinodaH., HayhoeM. M., & ShrivastavaA. (2001). What controls attention in natural environments?Vision Research, 41, 3535–3545.
38.
SmithT. J., & HendersonJ. M. (2009). Facilitation of return during scene viewing. Visual Cognition, 17, 1083–1108.
39.
TatlerB. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions.Journal of Vision, 7, 1–17.
40.
TatlerB. W., HayhoeM. M., LandM. F., & BallardD. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11, 1–23.
41.
TatlerB. W., & VincentB. T. (2008). Systematic tendencies in scene viewing. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1–18.
42.
TatlerB. W., & VincentB. T. (2009). The prominence of behavioural biases in eye guidance. Visual Cognition, 17, 1029–1054.
43.
TheeuwesJ. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.
44.
ThompsonC., & CrundallD. (2011). Scanning behaviour in natural scenes is influenced by a preceding unrelated visual search task. Perception, 40, 1335–1349.
45.
ThompsonC., UnderwoodG., & CrundallD. (2007). Previous attentional set can induce an attentional blink with task-irrelevant initial targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590.
46.
TorralbaA., OlivaA., CastelhanoM. S., & HendersonJ. M. (2006). Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychological Review, 113, 766–786.
47.
TreismanA., & GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
WalthewC., & GilchristI. D. (2006). Target location probability effects in visual search: An effect of sequential dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1294–1301.
50.
WatsonD. G., & HumphreysG. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90–122.
51.
WischnewskiM., BelardinelliA., SchneiderW. X., & SteilJ. J. (2010). Where to look next? Combining static and dynamic proto-objects in a TVA-based model of visual attention. Cognitive Computation, 2, 326–343.
52.
WolfeJ. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0. A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.
53.
WylieG., & AllportA. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.
54.
YarbusA. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press.
