Selective attention not only influences which objects in a display are perceived, but also directly changes the character of how they are perceived—for example, making attended objects appear larger or sharper. In studies of multiple-object tracking and probe detection, we explored the influence of sustained selective attention on where objects are seen to be in relation to each other in dynamic multi-object displays. Surprisingly, we found that sustained attention can warp the representation of space in a way that is object-specific: In immediate recall of the positions of objects that have just disappeared, space between targets is compressed, whereas space between distractors is expanded. These effects suggest that sustained attention can warp spatial representation in unexpected ways.
Anton-ErxlebenK.HenrichC.TreueS. (2007). Attention changes the perceived size of moving visual patterns. Journal of Vision, 7(11), Article 5. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/7/11/5/
2.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
CaveK. R.BichotN. P. (1999). Visuospatial attention: Beyond a spotlight model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 204–223.
5.
ConnorC. E.GallantJ. L.PreddieD. C.Van EssenD. C. (1996). Responses in area V4 depend on the spatial relationship between stimulus and attention. Journal of Neurophysiology, 75, 1306–1308.
6.
CorenS.GirgusJ. S. (1980). Principles of perceptual organization and spatial distortion: The gestalt illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 404–412.
7.
EglyR.DriverJ.RafalR. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.
8.
EriksenC. W.St. JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
9.
Fernandez-DuqueD.JohnsonM. L. (1999). Attention metaphors: How metaphors guide the cognitive psychology of attention. Cognitive Science, 23, 83–116.
10.
FlombaumJ. I.SchollB. J.PylyshynZ. W. (2008). Attentional resources in tracking through occlusion: The high-beams effect. Cognition, 107, 904–931.
11.
FranconeriS. L.JonathanS. V.ScimecaJ. M. (2010). Tracking capacity is limited only by object spacing, not by speed, time, or capacity. Psychological Science, 21, 920–925.
12.
GobellJ.CarrascoM. (2005). Attention alters the appearance of spatial frequency and gap size. Psychological Science, 16, 644–651.
13.
HowardC. J.HolcombeA. O. (2008). Tracking the changing features of multiple objects: Progressively poorer perceptual precision and progressively greater perceptual lag. Vision Research, 48, 1164–1180.
14.
IordanescuL.GraboweckyM.SuzukiS. (2009). Demand-based dynamic distribution of attention and monitoring of velocities during multiple-object tracking. Journal of Vision, 9(4), Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/1/
15.
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
16.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R.DavidsonB. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109, 160–174.
17.
PylyshynZ. W. (2006). Some puzzling findings in multiple object tracking (MOT): II. Inhibition of moving nontargets. Visual Cognition, 14, 175–198.
18.
PylyshynZ. W. (2007). Things and places: How the mind connects with the perceptual world (2004 Jean Nicod Lectures). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
PylyshynZ. W. (2009). Perception, representation and the world: The FINST that binds. In DedrickD.TrickL. (Eds.), Computation, cognition, and Pylyshyn (pp. 3–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
PylyshynZ. W.StormR. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197.
21.
RossJ.MorroneM. C.BurrD. C. (1997). Compression of visual space before saccades. Nature, 386, 598–601.
22.
SchollB. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80, 159–177.
23.
SchollB. J. (2009). What have we learned about attention from multiple object tracking (and vice versa)? In DedrickD.TrickL. (Eds.), Computation, cognition, and Pylyshyn (pp. 49–78). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
ShethB. R.ShimojoS. (2001). Compression of space in visual memory. Vision Research, 41, 329–341.
25.
ShimW. M.CavanaghP. (2005). Attentive tracking shifts the perceived location of a nearby flash. Vision Research, 45, 3253–3261.
26.
SuzukiS.CavanaghP. (1997). Focused attention distorts visual space: An attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 443–463.
27.
TombuM.SeiffertA. E. (2008). Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking. Cognition, 108, 1–25.
28.
TsalY.ShalevL. (1996). Inattention magnifies perceived length: The attentional receptive field hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 233–243.
29.
VickeryT. J.ChunM. M. (2010). Object-based warping: An illusory distortion of space within objects. Psychological Science, 21, 1759–1764.
30.
VickeryT. J.JiangY. V. (2009). Associative grouping: Perceptual grouping of shapes by association. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 896–909.
31.
WernerS.DiedrichsenJ. (2002). The time course of spatial memory distortions. Memory & Cognition, 30, 718–730.
