Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

When searching for a target object, we engage in a continuous “look-identify” cycle in which we use known features of the target to guide attention toward potential targets and then to decide whether the selected object is indeed the target. Target information in memory (the target template or attentional template) is typically characterized as having a single, fixed source. However, debate has recently emerged over whether flexibility in the target template is relational or optimal. On the basis of evidence from two experiments using college students (Ns = 30 and 70, respectively), we propose that initial guidance of attention uses a coarse relational code, but subsequent decisions use an optimal code. Our results offer a novel perspective that the precision of template information differs when guiding sensory selection and when making identity decisions during visual search.

Keywords

visual search attention target template drift-diffusion model open data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bae

G.-Y.

Olkkonen

Allred

S. R.

Flombaum

J. I.

(2015). Why some colors appear more memorable than others: A model combining categories and particulars in color working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000076

Bauer

Jolicoeur

Cowan

W. B.

(1996). Visual search for colour targets that are or are not linearly separable from distractors. Vision Research, 36(10), 1439–1466. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00207-3

Becker

S. I.

(2010). The role of target–distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018808

Brainard

D. H.

(1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00357

Bravo

M. J.

Farid

(2014). Informative cues can slow search: The cost of matching a specific template. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0532-z

Carlisle

N. B.

Arita

J. T.

Pardo

Woodman

G. F.

(2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315–9322. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1097-11.2011

Chelazzi

Duncan

Miller

E. K.

Desimone

(1998). Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(6), 2918–2940. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.2918

Cunningham

C. A.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2014). The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1585–1599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036313

Desimone

Duncan

(1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205

10.

Duncan

Humphreys

G. W.

(1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.433

11.

Eriksen

C. W.

(1953). Object location in a complex perceptual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(2), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058018

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

13.

Geng

J. J.

DiQuattro

N. E.

Helm

(2017). Distractor probability changes the shape of the attentional template. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1993–2007. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000430

14.

Geng

J. J.

Witkowski

(2019). Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.003

15.

Giesbrecht

J. L.

Guerin

S. A.

(2013). Both memory and attention systems contribute to visual search for targets cued by implicitly learned context. Vision Research, 85, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.10.006

16.

Green

B. F.

Anderson

L. K.

(1956). Color coding in a visual search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047484

17.

Hodsoll

Humphreys

G. W.

(2001). Driving attention with the top down: The relative contribution of target templates to the linear separability effect in the size dimension. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(5), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194447

18.

Hout

M. C.

Goldinger

S. D.

(2015). Target templates: The precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(1), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0764-6

19.

Hulleman

(2010). Inhibitory tagging in visual search: Only in difficult search are items tagged individually. Vision Research, 50(20), 2069–2079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.017

20.

Hulleman

Olivers

C. N. L.

(2017). The impending demise of the item in visual search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002794

21.

Kerzel

(2019). The precision of attentional selection is far worse than the precision of the underlying memory representation. Cognition, 186, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.001

22.

Kriegeskorte

Mur

Bandettini

(2008). Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008

23.

Lee

S.-H.

Kravitz

D. J.

Baker

C. I.

(2013). Goal-dependent dissociation of visual and prefrontal cortices during working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 16(8), 997–999. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3452

24.

Lleras

Wang

G. J. P.

Ballew

Buetti

(2020). A target contrast signal theory of parallel processing in goal-directed search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(2), 394–425. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01928-9

25.

Long

N. M.

Kuhl

B. A.

(2018). Bottom-up and top-down factors differentially influence stimulus representations across large-scale attentional networks. The Journal of Neuroscience, 38(10), 2495–2504. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2724-17.2018

26.

Malcolm

G. L.

Henderson

J. M.

(2010). Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. Journal of Vision, 10(2), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.4

27.

Martin

Becker

S. I.

(2018). How feature relationships influence attention and awareness: Evidence from eye movements and EEG. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000574

28.

Navalpakkam

Itti

(2007). Search goal tunes visual features optimally. Neuron, 53(4), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.01.018

29.

Nili

Wingfield

Walther

Marslen-Wilson

Kriegeskorte

(2014). A toolbox for representational similarity analysis. PLOS Computational Biology, 10(4), Article 1003553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003553

30.

Olivers

C. N. L.

Peters

Houtkamp

Roelfsema

P. R.

(2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004

31.

Pelli

D. G.

(1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00366

32.

Rajsic

Woodman

G. F.

(2020). Do we remember templates better so that we can reject distractors better? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(1), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01721-8

33.

Ratcliff

Childers

(2015). Individual differences and fitting methods for the two-choice diffusion model of decision making. Decision, 2(4), 237–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000030

34.

Ratcliff

McKoon

(2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420

35.

Reynolds

J. H.

Heeger

D. J.

(2009). The normalization model of attention. Neuron, 61(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.01.002

36.

Rosenholtz

(2017). Those pernicious items. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000248

37.

Scolari

Byers

Serences

J. T.

(2012). Optimal deployment of attentional gain during fine discriminations. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(22), 7723–7733. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5558-11.2012

38.

Scolari

Serences

J. T.

(2009). Adaptive allocation of attentional gain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(38), 11933–11942. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5642-08.2009

39.

Soto

Hodsoll

Rotshtein

Humphreys

G. W.

(2008). Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(9), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.007

40.

Treisman

A. M.

Gelade

(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

41.

Treue

Trujillo

J. C. M.

(1999). Feature-based attention influences motion processing gain in macaque visual cortex. Nature, 399(6736), 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/21176

42.

Wiecki

T. V.

Sofer

Frank

M. J.

(2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2013.00014

43.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2012). Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search? Psychological Science, 23(7), 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443968

44.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9

45.

Woodman

G. F.

Carlisle

N. B.

Reinhart

R. M. G.

(2013). Where do we store the memory representations that guide attention? Journal of Vision, 13(3), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.3.1

46.

Scerif

Aslin

R. N.

Smith

T. J.

Nako

Eimer

(2013). Searching for something familiar or novel: ERP correlates of top-down attentional selection for specific items or categories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00352

47.

Geng

J. J.

(2019). The attentional template is shifted and asymmetrically sharpened by distractor context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(3), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000609

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB