Attentional resources are limited, and resistance to interference plays a critical role during cognitive tasks and learning. Previous studies have shown that participants find it difficult to avoid being distracted by global visual information when processing local details. In this study, we investigated an innovative approach for enhancing the processing of local visual details by middle-school adolescents. Two groups completed a classic global/local visual search task in which a predefined target could appear at the global or local level, either with or without a frame. The results from the no-frame display group provided a direct replication in adolescents of previous findings in adults, with increasing number of interferent stimuli presented in the display adversely affecting detection of local targets. In addition, by varying the numbers of distractors inside and outside the frame, we showed that distractors only interfered with the processing of local information inside the frame, while the deleterious impact of increases in distracting information was prevented when the distractors were outside the frame. These findings suggest that when a frame delimits an attentional area, the influence of an increasing number of distractors present outside the frame is eliminated. We assume that application of a frame allows for efficient delimitation of attention deployment to a restricted topographical visual area in adolescents. These results evidence that processing of local details can be improved without modifying the structure of the stimuli, and provide promising clues for optimising attentional resources during time-absorbing visual searches. Applicable implications in the educational field are discussed.
AnderssonU.LyxellB. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(3), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
AyresP. L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1051
4.
BalasB.AuenA.ThrashJ.LammersS. (2020). Children’s use of local and global visual features for material perception. Journal of Vision, 20(2), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.2.10
5.
BrascampJ. W.BlakeR.KristjánssonÁ. (2011). Deciding where to attend: Priming of pop-out drives target selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1700–1707. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025636
6.
ChecaP.RuedaM. R. (2011). Behavioral and brain measures of executive attention and school competence in late childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(8), 1018–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2011.591857
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290095
DiamondA. (2006). The Early Development of Executive Functions. In BialystokE.CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169539.003.0006
EricksonL. C.ThiessenE. D.GodwinK. E.DickersonJ. P.FisherA. V. (2015). Endogenously and exogenously driven selective sustained attention: Contributions to learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.011
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
13.
FisherA. V.GodwinK. E.SeltmanH. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801
14.
GathercoleS. E.AllowayT. P.WillisC.AdamsA. M. (2006). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(3), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.08.003
15.
GazzaleyA.ClappW.KelleyJ.McEvoyK.KnightR. T.D’EspositoM. (2008). Age-related top-down suppression deficit in the early stages of cortical visual memory processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(35), 13122–13126. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806074105
16.
GerlachC.PoirelN. (2018). Navon’s classical paradigm concerning local and global processing relates systematically to visual object classification performance. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18664-5
17.
HanleyM.KhairatM.TaylorK.WilsonR.Cole-FletcherR.RibyD. M. (2017). Classroom displays—Attraction or distraction? Evidence of impact on attention and learning from children with and without autism. Developmental Psychology, 53(7), 1265–1275. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000271
18.
KimchiR.HadadB.BehrmannM.PalmerS. E. (2005). Microgenesis and ontogenesis of perceptual organization: Evidence from global and local processing of hierarchical patterns. Psychological Science, 16(4), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01529.x
19.
KrakowskiC. S.BorstG.PineauA.HoudéO.PoirelN. (2015). You can detect the trees as well as the forest when adding the leaves: Evidence from visual search tasks containing three-level hierarchical stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 157, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.03.001
20.
MaljkovicV.NakayamaK. E. N. (1996). Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(7), 977–991. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206826
21.
MelloniL.van LeeuwenS.AlinkA.MüllerN. G. (2012). Interaction between bottom-up saliency and top-down control: How saliency maps are created in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 22(12), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr384
22.
MevorachC.HumphreysG. W.ShalevL. (2006). Opposite biases in salience-based selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 9(6), 740–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1709
23.
MevorachC.HumphreysG. W.ShalevL. (2009). Reflexive and preparatory selection and suppression of salient information in the right and left posterior parietal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1204–1214. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.6.394
MoisalaM.SalmelaV.HietajärviL.SaloE.CarlsonS.SalonenO.LonkaK.HakkarainenK.Salmela-AroK.AlhoK. (2016). Media multitasking is associated with distractibility and increased prefrontal activity in adolescents and young adults. NeuroImage, 134, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.011
26.
NagyA. L.SanchezR. R. (1990). Critical color differences determined with a visual search task. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 7(7), 1209–1217. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.7.001209
OphirE.NassC.WagnerA. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
PassolunghiM. C.SiegelL. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2626
32.
PoirelN.KrakowskiC. S.SayahS.PineauA.HoudéO.BorstG. (2014). Do you want to see the tree? Ignore the forest. Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000240
33.
PoirelN.MelletE.HoudéO.PineauA. (2008a). First came the trees, then the forest: Developmental changes during childhood in the processing of visual local-global patterns according to the meaningfulness of the stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.245
34.
PoirelN.PineauA.MelletE. (2008b). What does the nature of the stimuli tell us about the Global Precedence Effect?Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.001
RauschenbergerR.YantisS. (2001). Attentional capture by globally defined objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(7), 1250–1261. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194538
38.
RideoutV. J.FoehrU. G.RobertsD. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds (No. 8010). The Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/8010.cfm/
39.
RobinsonC. W.HawthornA. M.RahmanA. N. (2018). Developmental differences in filtering auditory and visual distractors during visual selective attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02564
40.
SamahaJ.BauerP.CimaroliS.PostleB. R. (2015). Top-down control of the phase of alpha-band oscillations as a mechanism for temporal prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(27), 8439–8444. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503686112
WeiF. Y. F.WangY. K.KlausnerM. (2012). Rethinking college students’ self-regulation and sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive learning?Communication Education, 61(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.672755
44.
WolfeJ. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200774
45.
WolfeJ. M. (1996). Extending guided search: Why guided search needs a preattentive “item map..” In KramerA. F.ColesM. G. H.LoganG. D. (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 247–270). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10187-008
WolfeJ. M.CaveK. R.FranzelS. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.419
48.
WolfeJ. M.HorowitzT. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411
49.
ZantoT. P.GazzaleyA. (2009). Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4621-08.2009
