Location of Repository

Visual marking and change blindness : moving occluders and transient masks neutralize shape changes to ignored objects

By Derrick G. Watson and Melina A. Kunar

Abstract

Visual search efficiency improves by presenting (previewing) one set of distractors before the target and remaining distractor items (D. G. Watson & G. W. Humphreys, 1997). Previous work has shown that this preview benefit is abolished if the old items change their shape when the new items are added (e.g., D. G. Watson & G. W. Humphreys, 2002). Here we present 5 experiments that examined whether such object changes are still effective in recapturing attention if the changes occur while the previewed objects are occluded or masked. Overall, the findings suggest that masking transients are effective in preventing both object changes and the presentation of new objects from capturing attention in time-based visual search conditions. The findings are discussed in relation to theories of change blindness, new object capture, and the ecological properties of time-based visual selection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)\u

Topics: BF
Publisher: American Psychological Association
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:3861

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. doi
  2. (2008). A neural marker of content-specific active ignoring. doi
  3. (2000). Age-related effects in the marking of old objects in visual search. doi
  4. (1997). Change blindness. doi
  5. (2000). Change detection without awareness: Do explicit reports underestimate the representation of change in the visual system? doi
  6. (2002). Change Detection. doi
  7. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of 'mudsplashes'.
  8. (2003). Color grouping in space and time: Evidence from negative color-based carryover effects in preview search. doi
  9. (2005). Do new objects capture attention? doi
  10. (2004). Effects of colour on preview search: Anticipatory and inhibitory biases for colour. doi
  11. (2009). Effects of luminance change in preview search: Offsets and onsets can be concurrently prioritized but not in isolation. doi
  12. (2007). Filtering Items of Mass Distraction: Top-down Biases against distractors are Necessary for the Feature-based Carryover to Occur. doi
  13. (2002). Fractionating the preview benefit: Dual-task decomposition by timing and modality. doi
  14. (2003). History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture. doi
  15. (2006). Implicit change identification: A replication of Fernandez-Deque and Thornton doi
  16. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. doi
  17. (2006). Is it impossible to inhibit isoluminant items or does it simply take longer? Evidence from preview search. doi
  18. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? doi
  19. (2006). Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: Evidence from the ‘top-up’ procedure. doi
  20. (1980). Orienting of attention. doi
  21. (2008). Out with the old: Inhibition of old items in a preview search is limited. doi
  22. (2000). Picture changes during blinks: Looking without seeing and seeing without looking, doi
  23. (2004). Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview period: Evidence against visual marking. doi
  24. (2003). Prioritizing selection of new elements: Bottom-up versus top-down control. doi
  25. (2005). Prioritizing selection of new elements: On the time course of the preview effect. doi
  26. (2008). Resisting change: The influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit. doi
  27. (2005). Revisiting preview search benefits at isoluminance: New onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage. doi
  28. (2003). Search of jumping items: Visual marking and discrete motion. doi
  29. (2000). Situating vision in the real world. doi
  30. (2008). Spatial separation between targets constrains maintenance of attention on multiple objects. doi
  31. (1983). The cost of visual filtering. doi
  32. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes. doi
  33. (2006). The preview benefit: Visual marking, feature-based inhibition, temporal segregation, or onset capture? doi
  34. (2006). The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking, doi
  35. (2009). The spatial distribution of inhibition in preview search. doi
  36. (2006). Top-up search and the attentional blink: A two-stage account of the preview effect in search. doi
  37. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. doi
  38. (2003). Visual change with moving displays: More evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search. doi
  39. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision, doi
  40. (2001). Visual marking and the perception of salience in visual search. doi
  41. (2002). Visual marking and visual change. doi
  42. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets. doi
  43. (2001). Visual marking in moving displays: Feature-based inhibition is not necessary. doi
  44. (1998). Visual marking of moving objects: A role for top-down feature based inhibition in selection. doi
  45. (1998). Visual marking of old objects. doi
  46. (1997). Visual Marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. doi
  47. (2002). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups. doi
  48. (2005). Visual Marking: The effects of irrelevant changes on preview search. doi
  49. (2003). Visual marking: Using time in visual selection. doi
  50. (2004). Visual salience in the change detection paradigm: The special role of object onset. doi
  51. (2004). Visual search for change: A probe into the nature of attentional processing. doi
  52. (1998). Visual search. doi
  53. (2005). Visual sensing is seeing. doi
  54. (2003). What is marked in visual marking?: Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search. doi
  55. (2004). What kind of memory supports visual marking? doi
  56. (2003). When a reappearance is old news: Visual marking survives occlusion. doi
  57. (2003). When something old becomes something new: Spatiotemporal object continuity and attentional capture. doi
  58. (2002). When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down, limited-capacity inhibition. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.