바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.19 No.3
Citation Share

다중 표적자극 추적 자원의 시각장에 따른 독립성

The Attentional Resource for Tracking in Each Hemifield Cannot Move Toward the Other Hemifield

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.3, pp.251-262
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.3.005
원보영 (연세대학교)
김민식 (연세대학교)
원보영, & 김민식. (2007). 다중 표적자극 추적 자원의 시각장에 따른 독립성. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 19(3), 251-262, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.3.005
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

여러 개의 움직이는 시각 표적자극을 동시에 추적해야 하는 과제에서, Alvarez와 Cavanagh (2005)는 표적자극들이 양쪽 시각장에 각각 분배되어 제시되는 경우가 한 쪽 시각장에 모두 제시되는 경우보다 다중 표적자극들을 더 잘 추적함을 보임으로써, 복수의 움직이는 표적자극을 추적하는데 사용되는 주의 자원이 시각장에 따라 독립적으로 존재함을 주장하였다. 본 연구에서는 추적해야할 시각 표적자극들이 시각장 내 혹은 간 이동하는 경우, 추적 주의 자원이 이들 표적자극을 따라 함께 이동할 수 있는지 여부를 조사하였다. 만일 각 시각장에 할당된 주의 자원이 표적자극을 따라 이동할 수 있다면, 처음에 좌․우 시각장에 제시되었던 표적자극들이 하나의 시각장으로 이동된 후에도 추적 수행에 어려움을 보이지 않아야 할 것이다. 두 개의 실험에서 참가자는 여덟 개의 자극 중 네 개의 표적자극을 추적하는 과제를 하였다. 실험 결과, 표적자극들이 양쪽 시각장에 각각 두 개씩 제시되었다가 양쪽 시각장을 유지한 채 이동하는 조건에서의 추적 정확률이 처음 표적자극이 양쪽에 제시되었다가 한쪽 시각장으로 이동하는 조건의 정확률 보다 유의미하게 높았다. 이 결과는 각 시각장에 할당된 추적 주의자원이 다른 시각장으로 이동한 표적자극을 따라 함께 이동하기 어려운 것으로 해석할 수 있다.

keywords
multiple object tracking, attentional resource, hemifield, 다중 표적자극 추적 과제, 주의 자원, 시각장

Abstract

Alvarez and Cavanagh(2005) have reported that there are independent attentional resources for multiple object tracking (MOT) in two hemifields. Twice as many targets could be successfully tracked when they were distributed between hemifields as when they were all presented within a single hemifield. We investigated whether the attentional resource for tracking in one hemifield could track the targets that were presented initially in that hemifield, but later moved to the other hemifield. In our experiments, the participants tracked four objects among eight objects. The four targets were divided equally between the left and right hemifields. In one condition, targets moved only within each hemifield in which they were initially presented (Bilateral-to-Bilateral condition). In the other condition, two targets in one hemifield moved toward the other hemifield, while the other two targets remained moving in the initial hemifield, resulting in four moving targets within a hemifield(Bilateral-to-Unilateral condition). Our main interest was comparison between these two conditions, measuring the accuracy of MOT. The results showed that performance in the Bilateral-to-Bilateral condition was better than that in the Bilateral-to-Unilateral condition. In other words, when the initial targets presented in one hemifield moved across to the other hemifield, the attentional resource in each hemifield did not move cross the other hemifield along with the moving targets. This finding suggests that attentional resource for tracking could be object-based only within each hemifield.

keywords
multiple object tracking, attentional resource, hemifield, 다중 표적자극 추적 과제, 주의 자원, 시각장

참고문헌

1.

Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2005). Independent resources for attentional tracking in the left and right visual hemifields. Psychological Science, 16(8), 637-643.

2.

Alvarez, G. A., & Scholl, B. (2005). .How does attention select and track spatially extended objects? New effects of attentional concentration and amplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 134(4), 461- 476.

3.

Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 834-846.

4.

Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S, P. (1994). Object- based attentional mechanisms: evidence from patients with unilateral neglect Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and Nonconscious, 351-375.

5.

Cavanagh, P., & Alvarez, G. A. (2005). Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (7), 349-354.

6.

Cave, K. R., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Varieties of size specific visual selection. Journal of Experimental Pschology: General, 118, 148-164.

7.

Egeth, H. (1977). Attention and preattention. In G. H. Bower(Ed.), The psychology of Learning and Motivation, 11, 277-320.

8.

Eriksen., B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & psychophysics, 16, 143-149.

9.

Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155-160.

10.

Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1974). Selective attention: Noise suppression or signal enhancement? Bulletin of the Psychonomi Society, 4, 587-589.

11.

Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225-240.

12.

Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 583-597.

13.

Hoffman, J. E., & Nelson, B. (1981). Spatial selectivity in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 283-290.

14.

Larsen, A. & Bundesen, C.(1978). Size scaling in visual pattern recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 1-20.

15.

LeBerge, D.(1983). Spatial extend of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371-379.

16.

Murphy, T., & Eriksen, C. (1987). Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues. Percption & Psychophysics, 42, 576-586.

17.

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.

18.

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160-174.

19.

Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. Cognition, 80, 127-158.

20.

Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 1-19.

21.

Remington, R., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time invariant shifts of visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 393-399.

22.

Sagi, D., & Julesz, B. (1985). Fast noninertial shifts of attention. Spatial Vision, 1, 141-149.

23.

Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: the state of the art. Cognition, 80, 1-46.

24.

Scholl, B. J., & Pylyshyn Z. W. (1999). Tracking Multiple Items Through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 259-290.

25.

Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn Z. W. & Feldman, J. (2001). What is a visual object? Evidence from target merging in multiple object tracking. Cognition, 80, 159-177.

26.

Tsal, Y. (1983). Movement of attention across the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523-530.

27.

vanMarle, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2003). Attentive tracking of objects versus substances. Psychological Scinece, 14 (5), 498-504.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책