File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

Supplementary

Conference Paper: Dissociating preattentive vision and preattentive attentional guidance

TitleDissociating preattentive vision and preattentive attentional guidance
Authors
Issue Date2008
PublisherVision Sciences Society
Citation
Vision Sciences Society 8th Annual Meeting (VSS 2008), Naples, FL, 9-14 May 2008 How to Cite?
AbstractIn Feature Integration Theory (FIT; Treisman & Sato, 1990), efficient visual search performance can either be driven by preattentive vision, or by focused attention that is effectively guided by preattentive information. Whereas independent dimensional modules handle basic feature detection, a salience map of locations serves to guide attention in other searches. Recent theoretical models have largely abandoned this distinction; for example, the guided search theory (Wolfe, 1994) assumes that all searches are guided by a salience map. Based on an assumption that preattentive vision does not signal location information, the present study investigated and provided evidence for a distinction between searches that rely on preattentive vision and searches that rely on attentional guidance. Participants detected features or judged target locations (left or right side of the display); because location information is needed for the location judgement task, the salience map should be implicated in responses. Results showed a dissociation between tasks in terms of both dimension-switching costs and cross-dimension attentional capture, in which dimension-switching occurred only in the target detection task and attentional capture occurred only in the location judgement task. These results reflect the use of two different mechanisms, one dimension-specific and the other dimensiongeneral, which map onto existing proposals for dimensional modules and the salience map. In a feature discrimination task, results precluded an explanation based on response mode (detection versus discrimination). We conclude that the FIT architecture should be adopted to explain the current results, and that a variety of visual attention findings can be addressed within this framework.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/110088

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, KHen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHayward, WGen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-26T01:50:39Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-26T01:50:39Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_HK
dc.identifier.citationVision Sciences Society 8th Annual Meeting (VSS 2008), Naples, FL, 9-14 May 2008-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/110088-
dc.description.abstractIn Feature Integration Theory (FIT; Treisman & Sato, 1990), efficient visual search performance can either be driven by preattentive vision, or by focused attention that is effectively guided by preattentive information. Whereas independent dimensional modules handle basic feature detection, a salience map of locations serves to guide attention in other searches. Recent theoretical models have largely abandoned this distinction; for example, the guided search theory (Wolfe, 1994) assumes that all searches are guided by a salience map. Based on an assumption that preattentive vision does not signal location information, the present study investigated and provided evidence for a distinction between searches that rely on preattentive vision and searches that rely on attentional guidance. Participants detected features or judged target locations (left or right side of the display); because location information is needed for the location judgement task, the salience map should be implicated in responses. Results showed a dissociation between tasks in terms of both dimension-switching costs and cross-dimension attentional capture, in which dimension-switching occurred only in the target detection task and attentional capture occurred only in the location judgement task. These results reflect the use of two different mechanisms, one dimension-specific and the other dimensiongeneral, which map onto existing proposals for dimensional modules and the salience map. In a feature discrimination task, results precluded an explanation based on response mode (detection versus discrimination). We conclude that the FIT architecture should be adopted to explain the current results, and that a variety of visual attention findings can be addressed within this framework.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherVision Sciences Society-
dc.relation.ispartofVision Sciences Society Annual Meeting, VSS 2008en_HK
dc.titleDissociating preattentive vision and preattentive attentional guidanceen_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.emailHayward, WG: whayward@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHayward, WG=rp00630en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros145174en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats