These experiments used spatial probes to measure how spatial attention is allocated across the visual field during search for a target letter in an eight-letter array There were three main findings Attentional strength is flexibly adjusted according to the confusability between target and distractors Distractor locations near the target receive more inhibition than those farther from the target, indicating that the nearby distractors interfere more with target identification Despite the fact that consistent practice improves search rate it does not diminish the strength of spatial attention in this task
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrT. H.DagenbachD. (1990). Semantic and repetition priming form masked words. Evidence for a center-surround attentional mechanism in perceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 341–350.
2.
CaveK. R.PashlerI. I. (1995). Visual selection mediated by location. Selecting successive visual objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 421–432.
3.
CepedaN.CabeK. R.BichotN. P.KimM.-S. (1997). Spatial selection via features driven inhibition of distractor locations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4.
DowningC. J.PinkerS. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. InPosnerM. I.MarinO. S. M. (Eds.), Attention and performance XI: Mechanisms of attention. (pp.171–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
EriksenC. W.HoffmanJ. E. (1974). Selective attention: None suppression or signal enhancement?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 587–589.
7.
HeinzeH.-J.LuckS.J.MiinteT. E.GoesA.MangimG. R.HillyardS.A. (1994). Attention to adjacent and sepatate positions in space: An electrophysiological analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 42–52.
8.
HoffmanJ.E.NelsonB.HouckM. R. (1983). The role of attentional resources in automatic defection. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 379–410.
9.
HughesH. C.ZimibaL. D. (1987). Natural boundaries for the spatial spread of directed visual attention. Neuropsychological, 25, 5–18.
10.
KimM. S.CaveK. R. (1995). Spatial attention in visual search for features and feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 6, 376–380.
11.
LeBergeD.BrownV. (1980). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101–124.
PosnerM.I.SbyderCRR.DavidsonB. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.
14.
SagiD.JuleszB. (1986). Enhanced detection in the aperture of focal attention during simple discrimination tasks, Nature321, 693–695.
15.
SchallJ. D.HanesD. P.ThompsonK. G.KingD. J. (1995). Saccade target selection in frontal eye of macaque: I. Visual and premovement activation. Journal Neuroscience, 15, 6905–6918.
16.
SchneiderW.ShiffrimR.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
17.
ShiffrinR. M.SehneiderW. (1977), Controlled and automatic human information processing. II. Perceptual learning automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
18.
ShihS.-I.SperlingG. (1996). Is there feature-based attentional selection in visual search?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 758–779.
19.
SnyderC.R.R. (1972). Selection, inspection and naming in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 428–431.
20.
TreismanA.SoutherJ. (1982). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285–310.
21.
TsalY.LavieN. (1993). Location dominance in attending to color and shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 131–139.
22.
Van der HerjdenA.H.C.MalhasM.S.M.Van den RoopvaartB. P. (1984). An empirical interceder confusion matrix for continuous line capitals. Perception & Psychophicencey, 35, 85–88.
23.
WolfJ.M.PokomyC.W. (1990). Inhibitory tagging in visual search. A laihire to replicate. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 357–362.
24.
WongE.WeissteinN, (1982). Anew perceptual context-superiority effect, Line segments are more visible against a figure than against a ground. Science, 218, 587–589.
