바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.19 No.3
Citation Share

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

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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


& (2007). The Attentional Resource for Tracking in Each Hemifield Cannot Move Toward the Other Hemifield. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 19(3), 251-262, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.3.005
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy