1 / 29

Contingent Attentional Capture by Items in Selectively Ignored Locations

Bryan R. Burnham, PhD The University of Scranton. Contingent Attentional Capture by Items in Selectively Ignored Locations. Introduction.

gitel
Download Presentation

Contingent Attentional Capture by Items in Selectively Ignored Locations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bryan R. Burnham, PhD The University of Scranton Contingent Attentional Capture by Items in Selectively Ignored Locations

  2. Introduction ABSTRACT: Munneke, Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes (2008) demonstrated that distractor interference was reduced when a distractor appeared in a selectively ignored location; however, Moher and Egeth (2012) found that distractor interference was unaffected and responses were slower when a distractor appeared in an ignored color. Thus, locations, not features, can be selectively ignored. This study used a spatial cuing task similar to that used by Folk, Remington and Johnston (1992) to examine whether contingent attentional capture was affected when a salient, target feature-relevant cue appeared in an ignored location. The results showed that cuing effects by target feature-relevant cues were unaffected when the cue appeared in a to-be-ignored location than in a non-ignored location. Thus, target-relevant features can override an observer’s decision to ignore a location; however, responses were overall slower when cues appeared in the to-be-ignored location, suggesting they interfered with target localization. ABSTRACT: Munneke, Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes (2008) demonstrated that distractor interference was reduced when a distractor appeared in a selectively ignored location; however, Moher and Egeth (2012) found that distractor interference was unaffected and responses were slower when a distractor appeared in an ignored color. Thus, locations, not features, can be selectively ignored. This study used a spatial cuing task similar to that used by Folk, Remington and Johnston (1992) to examine whether contingent attentional capture was affected when a salient, target feature-relevant cue appeared in an ignored location. The results showed that cuing effects by target feature-relevant cues were unaffected when the cue appeared in a to-be-ignored location than in a non-ignored location. Thus, target-relevant features can override an observer’s decision to ignore a location; however, responses were overall slower when cues appeared in the to-be-ignored location, suggesting they interfered with target localization.

  3. Introduction • Questions my lab is addressing: • Can locations be selectively ignored? • What if an important item appears in a to-be-ignored location? • Is contingent attentional capture affected when cues appear in to-be-ignored locations?

  4. Background Munneke, Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes (2008) • Examined whether cuing a location to ignore influenced selection of an item in that location • T / ┴ target • I distractor (present or absent)

  5. Background Munneke, Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes (2008) • Interference was smaller when the distractor’s location was cued to be ignored

  6. Background Moher & Egeth (2012) • Examined whether an item feature (color) could be ignored • B/F target • b/f distractor (compatible or incompatible) E1 E2

  7. Background Moher & Egeth (2012) • RTs were greater on ignore trials • Compatibility effect was larger on ignore trials E1 E2

  8. Present Study • Munneke et al.’s (2008) results suggest locations can be selectively ignored • Moher & Egeth’s(2012) results suggest item features cannot be selectively ignored • Q: What effect will a feature-relevant item have on attention if it appears in a to-be-ignored location? • Will it be ignored? • Will it capture attention? • Maybe there will be a reduced capture effect?

  9. Experiment 1 • Modified cuing task • Arrow cue indicated the to-be-ignored location Target (Until Response) Delay (100 ms) Cue (50 ms) Ignore Location (1500 ms) Fixation (800-1200 ms) = X X = + + + + + + + X or or Blocked Within-Ss Between-Ss

  10. Experiment 1 Cue Location (Randomized within blocks) Valid = = = X X X = = = + + + + + + + + + X X X Invalid Ignore

  11. Experiment 1 • n = 31 University of Scranton Undergraduates • n = 14 in Red Target Group • n = 17 in Onset Target Group • Design: 2 (Target: Red, Onset) x 2 (Cue: Red, Onset) x 3 (Cue Location: Valid, Invalid, Ignore) • Reporting only RT analyses • Analyses on errors were similar • Error bars are 95% CIs

  12. Experiment 1 Results • Target x Cue x Cue Location (contingent capture) • F(2, 58) = 32.37, MSE = 327.66, p < .0001, • RTValid < RTInvalid= RTIgnore

  13. Experiment 1 Results • Issue: Was ignored location actually ignored? • Examined RTs as a function of ignored location distance • “Distance Effect” • F(1, 29) = 21.18, MSE = 2309, p < .0001, Ignore Location Adjacent Ignore Location Opposite or X X X = = = = = = + + + X X X

  14. Experiment 1 Summary • Target-relevant cue captured attention when it appeared in a to-be-ignored location • Contingent capture effects were equivalent for cues at invalid locations and ignored locations • But, was ignored location actually ignored? • Experiment 2 included an Ignore Location Absent block and Ignore Location Present block

  15. Experiment 2 • Ignore Location Present Block (Same as E1) Target (Until Response) Delay (100 ms) Cue (50 ms) Ignore Location (1500 ms) Fixation (800-1200 ms) = X X = + + + + + + + X or or Blocked Within-Ss Between-Ss

  16. Experiment 2 • Ignore Location Absent Block Target (Until Response) Delay (100 ms) Cue (50 ms) No Ignore Location (1500 ms) Fixation (800-1200 ms) = X X = + + + + + + + X or or Blocked Within-Ss Between-Ss

  17. Experiment 2 • n = 54 University of Scranton Undergraduates • n = 26 Red Target • n= 28 Onset Target • Ignore Location Present block vs. Absent block was counterbalanced across subjects • Analysis 1: Compared invalid-valid cuing effects between Ignore Location Present vs. Absent blocks • Used first blocks only due to interactions with Ignore Location Block Order • Analysis 2: Same as E1 on Ignore Location Present Block

  18. Experiment 2 Results • Analysis 1: Main effect of Ignore Location block • F(1, 50) = 8.51, MSE = 36078, p = .004, 15 • Found no interactions with Ignore Location Presence vs. Absence

  19. Experiment 2 Results • Analysis 1: Target x Cue x Cue Location • F(1, 50) = 35.68, MSE = 573, p < .0001, • Contingent capture same across blocks

  20. Experiment 2 Results • Analysis 2: Target x Cue x Cue Location (contingent capture) • F(2, 50) = 15.99, MSE = 635, p < .001, • RTValid < RTInvalid = RTIgnore

  21. Experiment 2 Results • Non-Significant “Distance Effect” • F(1, 22) = 1.83, MSE = 5688, p= .190,

  22. Overall Summary • Contingent capture effects by cues in the to-be-ignored locations were equivalent to contingent capture effects by cues in the possible target locations • Subjects seemed to ignore the location indicated • Feature-relevant items seem to capture attention in to-be-ignored locations

  23. Moving Forward • Was the ignored location really ignored? • Distance effects are somewhat informative • Probe detection in minority of trials? • Other versions: • Ran a color feature search (non-singleton) version • Ran a version that manipulated CTOA to examine IOR • We may try a spatial blink version with a cue to where distractor will appear • Maybe next year…  • Conclusion: Feature relevance seems to override intent to ignore a location

  24. Thanks for your attention (or ignoring ). bryan.burnham@scranton.edu

  25. Experiment 3 • Manipulated CTOA in Ignore Cue Present Condition Target (Until Response) Delay (0 or 700 ms) Spatial Cue (50 ms) Ignore Cue (1500 ms) Fixation (800-1200 ms) = X X = + + + + + + + X or or Blocked Within-Ss Between-Ss Blocked Within-Ss

  26. Experiment 3 • n = 25 University of Scranton Undergraduates • n = 12 Red Target • n= 13 Onset Target • 2 (Target) x 2 (Cue) x 3 (Cue Location) x 2 (CTOA: 50 ms vs. 750 ms) design • Difference between invalid cue and ignore conditions • F(2, 46) = 15.40, MSE = 402, p < .0001, 10 ms, p =.004 15 ms, p = .001 5 ms, p =.004

  27. Experiment 3: Results • Four way interaction not significant (p = .220) • Cue x Cue Location x CTOA • Color Target:F < 1 • Cue x Cue Location: F(2, 22) = 7.36, MSE = 709, p = .004, • Onset Target: F(2, 24) = 8.49, MSE = 440, p = .002, 41

  28. Experiment 3: Results • Congruent with results of Gibson & Amelio (2000) • Short CTOA results replicated E1 and Ignore Cue Present condition from E2

  29. Experiment 1 Results • Issue: Was ignored location actually ignored? • Secondary analysis compared valid and invalid trials as a function of ignored location distancefrom target Ignore Location Opposite Ignore Location Adjacent Cue Valid or X X X X X X = = = = = = = = = = = = + + + + + + X X X X X X Cue Invalid or

More Related