Visual Attention: Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down

AbstractVisual attention is attracted by salient stimuli that ‘pop out’ from their surroundings. Attention can also be voluntarily directed to objects of current importance to the observer. What happens in the brain when these two processes interact

Comment on Theeuwes’s Characterization of Visual Selection

Theeuwes (2018, this issue) argues that the classic dichotomy describing the factors that guide attention (bottom-up and top-down) is inadequate and should be replaced by a trichotomy (bottom-up, top-down, and selection history). In contrast, I argue that top-down is a broad category that comfortably includes selection history. While one can certainly choose to subdivide broad categories, there is no obvious stopping point for such an endeavor; how long can it be before this trichotomy turns into a “quadchotomy”

Modulating attentional load affects numerosity estimation: evidence against a pre-attentive subitizing mechanism

Traditionally, the visual enumeration of a small number of items (1 to about 4), referred to as subitizing, has been thought of as a parallel and pre-attentive process and functionally different from the serial attentive enumeration of larger numerosities. We tested this hypothesis by employing a dual task paradigm that systematically manipulated the attentional resources available to an enumeration task. Enumeration accuracy for small numerosities was severely decreased as more attentional resources were taken away from the numerical task, challenging the traditionally held notion of subitizing as a pre-attentive, capacity-independent process. Judgement of larger numerosities was also affected by dual task conditions and attentional load. These results challenge the proposal that small numerosities are enumerated by a mechanism separate from large numerosities and support the idea of a single, attention-demanding enumeration mechanism

Surface-based constraints on target selection and distractor rejection: Evidence from preview search

In preview search when an observer ignores an early appearing set of distractors, there can subsequently be impeded detection of new targets that share the colour of this preview. This “negative carry-over effect” has been attributed to an active inhibitory process targeted against the old items and inadvertently their features. Here we extend negative carry-over effects to the case of stereoscopically defined surfaces of coplanar elements without common features. In Experiment 1 observers previewed distractors in one surface (1000 ms), before being presented with the target and new distractors divided over the old and a new surface either above or below the old one. Participants were slower and less efficient to detect targets in the old surface. In Experiment 2 in both the first and second display the items were divided over two planes in the proportion 66/33% such that no new planes appeared following the preview, and there was no majority of items in any one plane in the final combined display. The results showed that participants were slower to detect the target when it occurred in the old majority surface. Experiment 3 held constant the 2D properties of the stimuli while varying the presence of binocular depth cues. The carry-over effect only occurred in the presence of binocular depth cues, ruling out any account of the results in terms of 2-D cues. The results suggest well formed surfaces in addition to simple features may be targets for inhibition in search

Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes

Inferences we make about underlying cognitive processes can be jeopardized in two ways due to problematic forms of aggregation. First, averaging across individuals is typically considered a very useful tool for removing random variability. The threat is that averaging across subjects leads to averaging across different cognitive strategies, thus harming our inferences. The second threat comes from the construction of inadequate research designs possessing a low diagnostic accuracy of cognitive processes. For that reason we introduced the systems factorial technology (SFT), which has primarily been designed to make inferences about underlying processing order (serial, parallel, coactive), stopping rule (terminating, exhaustive), and process dependency. SFT proposes that the minimal research design complexity to learn about n number of cognitive processes should be equal to 2n. In addition, SFT proposes that (a) each cognitive process should be controlled by a separate experimental factor, and (b) The saliency levels of all factors should be combined in a full factorial design. In the current study, the author cross combined the levels of jeopardies in a 2 × 2 analysis, leading to four different analysis conditions. The results indicate a decline in the diagnostic accuracy of inferences made about cognitive processes due to the presence of each jeopardy in isolation and when combined. The results warrant the development of more individual subject analyses and the utilization of full-factorial (SFT) experimental designs

Visual distraction in cytopathology: should we be concerned?

Visual distraction in cytopathology has not been previously investigated as a source of diagnostic error, presumably because the viewing field of a conventional light microscope is considered large enough to minimise interference from peripheral visual stimuli. Virtual microscopy, which involves the examination of digitised images of pathology specimens on computer screens, is beginning to challenge the central role of light microscopy as a diagnostic tool in cytopathology. The relatively narrow visual angle offered by virtual microscopy makes it conceivable that users of these systems are more vulnerable to visual interference. Using a variant of a visual distraction paradigm (the Eriksen flanker task), the aim of the study was to determine whether the accuracy and speed of interpreting cells on a central target screen is affected by images of cells and text displayed on neighbouring monitors under realistic reading room conditions