Does visual attention select objects or locations?

Much research supports location-based attentional selection, but J. Duncan (see record 1985-29839-001) presented data favoring object-based selection in a shape discrimination task. Does attention select objects or locations? The authors confirmed that Duncan's task elicits selection from spatially invariant object representations rather than from a grouped location-based representation. They next asked whether this finding was due to location-based filtering; the results again supported object-based selection. Finally, it was demonstrated that when Duncan's objects were used in a cued detection task, the results were consistent with location-based selection. These results suggest that there may be a single attention mechanism, consistent with Duncan's original claim that object-based and location-based attentional selection are not mutually exclusive. Rather, attentional limitations may depend on the type of stimulus representation used in performing a given task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Object-based attentional selection—Grouped arrays or spatially invariant representations?: Comment on Vecera and Farah (1994).

S. P. Vecera and M. J. Farah (see record 1994-32352-001) have addressed the issue of whether visual attention selects objects or locations. They obtained data that they interpreted as evidence for attentional selection of objects from an internal spatially invariant representation. A. F. Kramer, T. A. Weber, and S. E. Watson question this interpretation on both theoretical and empirical grounds. First, the authors suggest that there are other interpretation of the Vecera and Farah data that are consistent with location-mediated selection of objects. Second, they provide data, using the displays employed by Vecera and Farah in conjunction with a postdisplay probe technique, that suggests that attention is directed to the locations of the target objects. The implications of the results for space and object-based attentional selection are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Grouped locations and object-based attention: Comment on Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994).

Recently, R. Egly et al (see record 1994-34191-001) provided evidence for an object-based component of visual orienting in a simple cued reaction time task. However, the effects of objects on visual attention can be due to selection from either of 2 very different types of representations: (1) a truly object-based representation that codes for object structure or (2) a grouped array representation that codes for groups of spatial locations. Are Egly et al's results due to selection from an object-based representation or from a grouped array representation? This question was addressed by using a variant of Egly et al's task. The findings replicated those of Egly et al and demonstrated that the selection in this task is mediated through a grouped array representation. The implications of these results for studies of attentional selection are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Occlusion, symmetry, and object-based attention: Reply to Saiki (2000).

J. Saiki (see record 2000-13210-027) argued that, because the stimuli used by M. Behrmann, R. S. Zemel, and M. C. Mozer (see record 1998-04674-001) were confounded by symmetry, conclusions about whether amodally completed objects can benefit from object-based attention are unwarranted. Here, the authors, examine J. Saiki's claim further and expand on their view of the mechanisms underlying object-based attention, suggesting that perceptual organization is the process whereby features from a single object are selectively attended. In light of this, they claim that heuristics such as symmetry and collinearity play an important role in the facilitation of features from a single object. In support of this claim, they present data from a further experiment using displays that exploit common fate, another grouping heuristic, and show that, under these conditions, the hallmark of object-based attention, a single-object advantage, is obtained for the occluded (amodally completed) shapes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Object-based attentional selection and aging.

The authors conducted 2 studies which examined potential age-related differences in object-based attentional selection. Participants were briefly presented with pairs of wrenches and were asked to make 1 response if both target properties (i.e., an open end and a hexagonal end) were present and another response if only a single target property was present in the display. The critical manipulation was whether the target properties were present on 1 wrench or distributed between 2 wrenches. Space-based models of selective attention predict no difference in performance between these conditions. However, object-based attentional selection models predict better performance when both target properties appear on a single object. The results from both of the studies were consistent with object-based models of attentional selection. Furthermore, both young and old adults showed similar performance effects, suggesting the object-based attentional selection is insensitive to normal aging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Putnam, Adams, and Schneider, 'One day test-retest reliability of neuropsychological tests in a personal injury case."

In an article in Psychological Assessment, S. H. Putnam et al (see record 1993-04124-001) presented a case study in which retesting by separate examiners over a brief time period yielded consistent results. Although Putnam et al raised a number of points that deserve attention, some of their suggestions about the relevance of their case to legal assessments seem to extend well beyond what their data and methodology justify, and they misrepresented D. Faust and J. Ziskin's (see record 1989-11643-001) views on psychology and law. The author discusses limits of the case study method and clarifies his views on the use of psychological evidence in the courtroom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When selective adaptation and contrast effects are distinct: A reply to Diehl, Kluender, and Parker.

Two alternative conceptualizations of selective adaptation with speech have recently received attention: the adaptation level theory (AL) outlined by R. L. Diehl (see record 1981-05067-001) and a 2-stage model outlined by the 1st author and P. Jusczyk (see record 1982-00351-001). Diehl et al (see record 1986-05428-001) reported evidence of streaming in selective adaptation and claimed that their results provide a counterdemonstration to recent studies that have argued against the AL approach. It is shown how the Diehl et al results can be accounted for by both the 2-stage model and AL theory. Results are presented from a study with 74 undergraduates that compared adaptation and paired-comparison procedures. These results are precisely as predicted by the 2-stage model, but they cannot be accounted for by AL theory. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Occlusion, symmetry, and object-based attention: Comment on Behrmann, Zemel, and Mozer (1998).

The validity of M. Behrmann, R. Zemel, and A Mozer's (see record 1998-04674-001) finding that object-based attention can be directed toward occluded objects is examined in 3 experiments. In A Behrmann et al.'s original study, participants made speeded judgments of whether the numbers of bumps attached to 2 arms of an X shape were the same or different. The 2 sets of bumps belonged either to a single object, 2 different objects, or 2 separated parts of an occluded object. Unfortunately, this objecthood manipulation was confounded by the symmetry of the stimuli. Experiment 1 replicated M. Behrmann et al.'s main results using identical stimuli. Experiments 2a and 2b dissociated objecthood from symmetry. The results suggest that the effects of object-based attention found by A Behrmann et al. are largely due to symmetry. The stimuli used in M. Behrmann et al. are not appropriate for examining the relation between object-based attention and occlusion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The masking account of attentional capture: A reply to Yantis and Jonides (1996).

B. S. Gibson (see record 1997-06229-001) has recently argued that stimulus-driven attentional capture by abrupt onsets (or new objects) may be due to forward masking of the no onsets (or old objects) by preceding figure-eight placeholders. Three experiments are reported in the present article that address recent arguments and evidence offered by S. Yantis and J. Jonides (see record 1997-06254-001) against the masking account of attentional capture. Contrary to Yantis and Jonides's claims, the present study provides strong support for the masking account of attentional capture. Thus, the masking account appears to provide the best explanation of the existing data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Core Curriculum is an Independent Variable.

Comments on the article "The core curriculum is a dependent variable" by S. C. Erickson (see record 1959-07370-001), in which the author presented a valiant attempt to make sense out of the issues involved in the core curriculum for the PhD. In discussing the core curriculum as a dependent variable, Ericksen turned to an analysis of one major set of independent variables presumably involved: the attitudes of faculty members responsible for deciding on the content of the core. His analysis might be very useful if it only leads faculty members to a close and frank examination of their fondly held opinions. The current author suggests that departments should be asked to specify in some detail what they are trying to do and why. Then one can see, by evaluating the criterion performances of their graduates, how well they have succeeded. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: Reply to Maddox and Ashby (1998).

In this reply to W. T. Maddox and F. G. Ashby's (see record 1997-38560-018) commentary, the author argues that (a) Maddox and Ashby's current stance represents a marked departure from their previously published claims about the unimportance of selective attention in categorization, (b) they are inconsistent with their own work when they criticize S. C. McKinley and R. M. Nosofsky's (see record 83-21759) tests of the linear-boundary models, (c) their arguments about modeling averaged data have no bearing on the central conclusions reached by McKinley and Nosofsky, and (d) they make incorrect assertions regarding the application and predictions of the exemplar model. Finally, the author defends the theoretical progress that has been made in recent years with the exemplar model and argues instead that it is the decision-bound theory of Ashby and Maddox that is in need of greater constraints. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is attentional selection to different levels of hierarchical structure based on spatial frequency?

Target identification is faster when the target level (global or local) is the same as that on the previous trial, presumably because attention is directed to the appropriate level. L. C. Robertson (see record 1996-05632-001) found that eliminating low spatial frequencies by contrast balancing eliminated this level repetition effect and concluded that attentional selection between different levels of structure is based on spatial frequency. In contrast, M. R. Lamb and E. W. Yund (1996a) found no effect of contrast balancing on the level repetition effect and thus concluded that attentional selection is not based on spatial frequency. In this study, the authors identified the procedural difference between the 2 studies responsible for this difference in results and replicated both findings. The data show that spatial frequency is not a necessary basis for attentional selection between global and local forms. Although it remains possible that spatial frequency is the basis of attentional selection under some circumstances, the data supporting this proposition are not yet compelling. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ethics of asking about abuse and the harm of "don't ask, don't tell."

Replies to comments by J. Read (see record 2007-07130-012), D. Gleaves et al (see record 2007-07130-013), V. Edwards et al (see record 2007-07130-014), M. Black and R. Black (see record 2007-07130-015), and S. Ullman (see record 2007-07130-016), which raised important points about the authors' original article (see record 2006-03947-003). Those comments extend our thinking about how to ask participants about abuse in an ethical way. Together, the comments point to the importance of researchers examining our own reasons for asking--or not asking--about abuse and of paying attention to how we respond when we ask. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can Attentional Theory Explain the Inverse Base Rate Effect? Comment on Kruschke (2001).

In J. K. Kruschke's (2001; see record 2001-18940-005) study, it is argued that attentional theory is the sole satisfactory explanation of the inverse base rate effect and that eliminative inference (P. Juslin, P. Wennerholm, & A. Winman, 2001; see record 2001-07828-016) plays no role in the phenomenon. In this comment, the authors demonstrate that, in contrast to the central tenets of attentional theory, (a) rapid attention shifts as implemented in ADIT decelerate learning in the inverse base-rate task and (b) the claim that the inverse base-rate effect is directly caused by an attentional asymmetry is refuted by data. It is proposed that a complete account of the inverse base-rate effect needs to integrate attention effects with inference rules that are flexibly used for both induction and elimination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dimension-based visual attention modulates dual-judgment accuracy in Duncan's (1984) one- versus two-object report paradigm.

Four experiments, adapting the object-judgment paradigm developed by J. Duncan (1984), examined the relationship between object-based and domain-based mechanisms of visual attention. The experiments demonstrated a cross-domain cost, in terms of accuracy, when observers made dual color–form judgments to one or two overlapping objects presented briefly, relative to within-domain, dual-color and dual-form judgments. This domain-based selection effect was additive to an object-based effect, a cost of making dual judgments to separate objects, as reported by J. Duncan (1984). The pattern of object- and domain-based effects points to a capacity limitation in how multidimensional features are bound into a coherent object representation, consistent with the dimension-weighting account of H. J. Müller, D. Heller, and J. Ziegler (1995), which postulates that there is a limit to the total selection weight available to be allocated to an object's dimensions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mystery and meaning: A reply to Green (2000).

In "George A. Miller, Language, and the Computer Metaphor of Mind" (see record 1999-00168-003), the author sought to explain how and why Miller invested the computer metaphor of mind with such strongly revolutionary, antibehaviorist meanings. In reply, C. Green (see record 2000-07174-004) has argued that the answer to this question has to do with the importance of mental representation to the cognitivists. In response, the author argues that, though mental representation was an important issue to cognitivists, there were several other factors of equal or greater importance: specifically, the fascination of Miller and his cohort with language and communication, their frustration with the narrowness of the disciplinary vision of the behaviorists, and their involvement in a different experimental program than that of mainstream behaviorists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rational explanation of the selection task.

M. Oaksford and N. Chater (O&C, see record 1995-08271-001) presented the first quantitative model of R C. Wason's (1966) selection task in which performance is rational. J. St. B. T. Evans and D. E. Over (see record 83:25190) reply that O&C's account is normatively incorrect and cannot model K. N. Kirby's (see record 1995-04302-001) or R Pollard and J. St. B. T. Evans's (see record 1984-30572-001) data. It is argued that an equivalent measure satisfies their normative concerns and that a modification of O&C's model accounts for their empirical concerns. D. Laming (see record 83:25220) argues that O&C made unjustifiable psychological assumptions and that a "correct" Bayesian analysis agrees with logic. It is argued that O&C's model makes normative and psychological sense and that Laming's analysis is not Bayesian. A. Almor and S. A. Sloman (see record 83:25168) argue that O&C cannot explain their data. It is argued that Almor and Sloman's data do not bear on O&C's model because they alter the nature of the task. It is concluded that O&C's model remains the most compelling and comprehensive account of the selection task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attentional spreading in object-based attention.

The authors investigated 2 effects of object-based attention: the spread of attention within an attended object and the prioritization of search across possible target locations within an attended object. Participants performed a flanker task in which the location of the task-relevant target was fixed and known to participants. A spreading attention account predicts that object-based attention will arise from the spread of attention through an attended object. A prioritization account predicts that there will be a small, if any, object-based effect because the location of the target is known in advance and objects are not required to prioritize the deployment of attentional search. The results suggested that object-based attention operates via the spread of attention within an object. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Canadian studies of visual information-processing: 1970–1980.

Reviews Canadian research on reading and word identification and examines W. Herons's (see record 1959-00387-001) scanning theory that accounts for visual hemifield differences in terms of a serial left-to-right attentional mechanism operating on the stimulus trace. Heron's model, and subsequent work by M. P. Bryden (see record 1967-06490-001), introduced an information-processing approach to the study of perception in Canada and raised questions about the nature of attention, visual persistence, and letter and word recognition. These topics have continued to be a focus for research during the past decade. It is concluded that current results suggest at least 3 attentional processes, 3 buffer stores, and the use of extensive orthographic knowledge in processing letters and words. (French abstract) (2? p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture and biology.

Replies to comments by J. H. Harvey (see record 2005-11080-006) on the original article by S. D. Kaplan (see record 2005-11049-006). Kaplan states that being against fallacy is like being against sin. It is sanctimony unless accompanied by an analysis of how falsehood hypocritically simulates truth and how sin brazenly parades as virtue. When an analysis is offered to support the charge of fallacy, then it is the analysis which must be examined for its validity. The vehemence with which the fallacy is charged is pointless by itself except as a red herring which may draw attention away from the issues under analysis. Harvey charges the error of creating a dichotomy between the culture and the biology of the individual. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)