Understanding the contribution of target repetition and target expectation to the emergence of the prevalence effect in visual search

Behavior in visual search tasks is influenced by the proportion of trials on which a target is presented (the target prevalence). Previous research has found that when target prevalence is low (2% prevalence), participants tend to miss targets, compared with higher prevalence levels (e.g., 50% prevalence). There is an ongoing debate regarding the relative contribution of target repetition and the expectation that a target will occur in the emergence of prevalence effects. In order to disentangle these two factors, we went beyond previous studies by directly manipulating participants’ expectations regarding how likely a target was to appear on a given trial. This we achieved without using cues or feedback. Our results indicated both target repetition and target expectation contribute to the emergence of the prevalence effect

Dual-Target Cost in Visual Search for Multiple Unfamiliar Faces.

The efficiency of visual search for one (single-target) and either of two (dual-target) unfamiliar faces was explored to understand the manifestations of capacity and guidance limitations in face search. The visual similarity of distractor faces to target faces was manipulated using morphing (Experiments 1 and 2) and multidimensional scaling (Experiment 3). A dual-target cost was found in all experiments, evidenced by slower and less accurate search in dual- than single-target conditions. The dual-target cost was unequal across the targets, with performance being maintained on one target and reduced on the other, which we label "preferred" and "non-preferred" respectively. We calculated the capacity for each target face and show reduced capacity for representing the non-preferred target face. However, results show that the capacity for the non-preferred target can be increased when the dual-target condition is conducted after participants complete the single-target conditions. Analyses of eye movements revealed evidence for weak guidance of fixations in single-target search, and when searching for the preferred target in dual-target search. Overall, the experiments show dual-target search for faces is capacity- and guidance-limited, leading to superior search for 1 face over the other in dual-target search. However, learning faces individually may improve capacity with the second face. (PsycINFO Database Recor

ImmuneLENS characterizes systemic immune dysregulation in aging and cancer

Recognition and elimination of pathogens and cancer cells depend on the adaptive immune system. Thus, accurate quantification of immune subsets is vital for precision medicine. We present immune lymphocyte estimation from nucleotide sequencing (ImmuneLENS), which estimates T cell and B cell fractions, class switching and clonotype diversity from whole-genome sequencing data at depths as low as 5× coverage. By applying ImmuneLENS to the 100,000 Genomes Project, we identify genes enriched with somatic mutations in T cell-rich tumors, significant sex-based differences in circulating T cell fraction and demonstrated that the circulating T cell fraction in patients with cancer is significantly lower than in healthy individuals. Low circulating B cell fraction was linked to increased cancer incidence. Finally, circulating T cell abundance was more prognostic of 5-year cancer survival than infiltrating T cells

Object-based attention with endogenous cuing and positional certainty

Previous studies have concluded that object-based attention does not always arise if attention is cued endogenously (Macquistan, 1997) or if the target location is known with certainty (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002). In the Experiments reported here, we found object-based attention even when the locations of the two targets were known with certainty due to presentation of an endogenous cue. However, object-based attention can be prevented by limiting the exposure time of the object stimuli. These findings provide additional evidence against a search prioritization account of object-based attention. They lead to a fuller view of the role of object boundaries in directing attention. Object-based attention is frequently used spontaneously, even when the object boundaries are irrelevant to the task. However, object segmentation is not necessary for all tasks, because attention can be allocated before the stimulus has been segregated into objects

Singleton search is guided by knowledge of the target, but maybe it shouldn't be

Among studies of visual search for a singleton, some studies show evidence of top-down attentional guidance driven by goals, while others do not, leading to uncertainty as to how goal-driven guidance should be included in attentional theories. Six experiments tested this guidance when a target shape is found by locating a singleton feature (color or shape) and an orientation within the target is then reported. Experiments 1 and 2 use the dimensional priming paradigm underlying the most effective arguments against goal-driven guidance, and show evidence for guidance in many circumstances. Experiment 3 extends the results to feature priming, and demonstrates a complex interaction between attentional goals and memory for previous targets. In Experiment 4, symbolic (word) cues were just as effective as image cues, further strengthening the case for goal-driven guidance. In Experiments 5 and 6, as in the previous experiments, valid cues again produced faster responses than invalid cues, showing the advantage of goal-driven guidance. Surprisingly, however, responses were even faster when the cues were uninformative. Furthermore, participants who began the experiment with neutral cues seemed to ignore informative cues later in the experiment. The results show that attention can be guided by goals even in easy searches, but that searchers have much flexibility in the use of this guidance, and may choose not to use it. Furthermore, their decisions about using this guidance are not always well informed, because they are not aware of the relative costs and benefits

When Does Visual Attention Select All Features of a Distractor?

This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.What happens after visual attention is allocated to an object? Although many theories of attention assume that all of its features are selected and processed, there has been little direct evidence that an irrelevant feature dimension of an attended nontarget is processed. In 5 experiments presented here, the authors used a singleton paradigm to investigate the effect of attention on nontarget objects. Participants made a speeded feature discrimination of a target for which the response was either compatible or incompatible with an irrelevant feature dimension of a distractor. The results show that the irrelevant distractor features were processed to the point that they interfered with the response to the target. The response compatibility effect was observed even when the location of the target or the distractor was invariant, although it was much weaker when both locations were invariant. These results demonstrate that in many circumstances, an attended distractor is completely selected and fully processed, and the complete processing of distractors depends on a number of factors, many of which are related to the strength of attention to the distractor

Reinstating object-based attention under positional certainty: The importance of subjective parsing

Previous studies have shown that interference from flanking abstractors can be modulated by the object organization of the scene. The experiments reported here test for object-based attention under conditions of positional certainty, which allow a narrow focus of attention to the target. Prior research has suggested that object-based attention does not arise in these circumstances, but the experiments presented here show that object-based attention can still appear if previous experience with the stimuli leads participants to interpret the stimulus pattern as two separate objects. Two control experiments demonstrate that the appearance of object-based attention is not due simply to a widening of the focus of spatial attention. The presence of object-based attention in such a focused-attention task argues against Shomstein and Yantis's (2002) proposed explanation of object-based attention based on priority in the order of visual search

Grouping effects on spatial attention in visual search.

In visual search tasks, spatial attention selects the locations containing a target or a distractor with one of the target's features, implying that spatial attention is driven by target features (M.-S. Kim & K. R. Cave, 1995). The authors measured the effects of location-based grouping processes in visual search. In searches for a color-shape combination (conjunction search), spatial probes indicated that a cluster of same-color or same-shape elements surrounding the target were grouped and selected together. However, in searches for a shape target (feature search), evidence for grouping by an irrelevant feature dimension was weaker or nonexistent. Grouping processes aided search for a visual target by selecting groups of locations that shared a common feature, although there was little or no grouping by an irrelevant feature when the target was defined by a unique salient feature

Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search.

In some cases, the search for a conjunction target proceeds through the smaller group of elements in a display, whereas in others, search is limited to those elements that share a particular feature with the target. In 6 experiments, participants searched for a conjunction target among displays consisting of various proportions of 2 distractor types. Smaller-group search was more prevalent than target-feature search with denser displays and with features that were highly discriminable. Explicit instructions to limit search to a specific feature affected performance only when the discriminability of the guiding feature was much greater than the other target feature. Together, these experiments show that bottom-up factors have more influence in guiding conjunction searches than previously thought