We describe a new method for mapping spatial attention that reveals a pooling of attention in the hemifield opposite a peripheral flash. Our method exploits the fact that a brief full-field blank can interfere with the detection of changes in a scene that occur during the blank. Attending to the location of a change, however, can overcome this change blindness, so that changes are detected. The likelihood of detecting a new element in a scene therefore provides a measure of the occurrence of attention at that element's location. Using this measure, we mapped how attention changes in response to a task-irrelevant peripheral cue. Under conditions of visual fixation, change detection was above chance across the entire visual area tested. In addition, a “hot spot” of attention (corresponding to near-perfect change detection) elongated along the cue-fixation axis, such that performance improved not only at the cued location but also in the opposite hemifield.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BennettP.J.PrattJ. (2001). The spatialdistribution of the inhibition of return. Psychological Science, 12, 76–80.
2.
BichotN.P.CaveK.R.PashlerH. (1999). Visual selectionmediated by location: Feature-based selection of noncontiguouslocations. Perception &Psychophysics, 61, 403–423.
3.
BraunJ. (1998). Vision andattention: The role of training. Nature, 393, 424–425.
4.
BraunJ.JuleszB. (1998). Withdrawingattention at little or no cost: Detection and discrimination. Perception &Psychophysics, 60, 1–23.
5.
CaveK.R.ZimmermanJ.M. (1997). Flexibility in spatial attention before and afterpractice. Psychological Science, 8, 399–403.
6.
DriverJ.DavisG.RussellC.TurattoM.FreemanE. (2001). Segmentation, attention and phenomenalvisual objects. Cognition, 80(1-2), 61–95.
7.
DuncanJ. (1984). Selectiveattention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.
8.
EriksenC.W.St. JamesJ.D. (1986). Visual attentionwithin and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception &Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
9.
EverlingS.MunozD.P. (2000). Neuronal correlates for preparatory set associatedwith pro-saccades and anti-saccades in the primate frontal eyefield. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(1), 387–400.
10.
FolkC.L.RemingtonR.W.JohnstonJ.C. (1992). Involuntarycovert orienting is contingent upon attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
11.
HeS.CavanaghP.IntriligatorJ. (1996). Attentionalresolution and the locus of visual awareness. Nature, 383, 334–337.
NormanD.A.BobrowD.G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limitedprocesses. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
17.
PodgornyP.ShepardR.N. (1983). Distribution of visual attention overspace. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 380–393.
PosnerM.I.SnyderC.R.R.DavidsonB.J. (1980). Attention andthe detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.
20.
PrattJ.SpalekT.BradshawE. (1999). The time todetect targets at inhibited and non-inhibited locations: Preliminary evidencefor attentional momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 730–746.
RemingtonR.PierceL. (1984). Movingattention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selectiveattention. Perception &Psychophysics, 35, 393–399.
23.
RensinkR.A. (2000a). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing. Vision Research, 40, 1469–1487.
24.
RensinkR.A. (2000b). Visual searchfor change: A probe into the nature of attentional processing. Visual Cognition, 7, 345–376.
25.
RensinkR.A.O'ReganJ.K.ClarkJ.J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention toperceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.
26.
SagiD.JuleszB. (1985). Fast noninertialshifts of attention. Spatial Vision, 1, 141–149.
27.
ShulmanG.L.RemingtonR.W.McLeanJ.P. (1979). Moving attentionthrough visual space. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 522–526.
28.
SimonsD.J. (1996). In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail. Psychological Science, 7, 30–35.
29.
SimonsD.J.LevinD.T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during areal-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644–649.
30.
SmilekD.EastwoodJ.D.MerikleP.M. (2000). Does unattendedinformation facilitate change detection?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 480–487.
31.
SnyderJ.J.SchmidtW.C.KingstoneA. (2001). Attentionalmomentum does not underlie the inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1420–1432.
32.
SperlingG. (1960). The informationavailable in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74, 1–29.
33.
SperlingG.WeichselgartnerE. (1995). Episodic theory of the dynamics of spatialattention. Psychological Review, 102, 503–552.
34.
ThorntonI.M.Fernandez-DuqueD. (2000). An implicit measure of undetected change. Spatial Vision, 14, 21–44.
35.
TreismanA.GeladeG. (1980). Afeature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
36.
TreismanA.SatoS. (1990). Conjunctionsearch revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 459–478.
37.
TreueS.MaunsellJ.H. (1999). Effects of attention on the processing of motion inmacaque middle temporal and medial superior temporal visual corticalareas. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 7591–7602.
38.
TsalY. (1983). Movements ofattention across the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.
39.
TseP.U.SheinbergD.L.LogothetisN.K. (2002). Fixational eyemovements are not affected by abrupt onsets that captureattention. Vision Research, 42, 1663–1669.
40.
VeceraS.P.FarahM.J. (1994). Does visual attention select objects orlocations?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 146–160.
41.
WolfeJ.M.GancarzG. (1996). Guided search 3.0: A model of visual search catchesup with Jay Enoch 40 years later. InLakshminarayananV. (Ed.), Basic andclinical applications of vision science(pp.189–192). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
42.
WolfeJ.M.O'NeillP.BennettS.C. (1998). Why are there eccentricity effects in visualsearch?Visual andattentional hypotheses. Perception &Psychophysics, 60, 140–156.
43.
YantisS.EgethH.E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience andstimulus-driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 661–676.
