바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.2
Citation Share

Individual differences in cognitive control and selective attention: object-based attention and location-based attention

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.2, pp.309-326
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.006
(Department of Neuroscience Univ. of California, Sa)

& (2016). Individual differences in cognitive control and selective attention: object-based attention and location-based attention. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(2), 309-326, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.006
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between individuals’ cognitive abilities and selective attention has implications for both general cognitive mechanisms and characteristics of special populations. Bleckley et al. (2003, 2015) suggested that individuals with high cognitive control ability allocate attention effectively based on an object (i.e., object-based facilitation effect), whereas individuals with low cognitive control ability allocate attention broadly based on the location of the object. If those with high cognitive control ability use object-based attention for effective information processing, they should not allocate attention to an object, if selection based on the object is not effective. The present study examined how individuals with high cognitive ability and with low cognitive ability allocate their attention when the selection based on an object is not effective. We also attempted to measure location and object effects more accurately by moving a cued object to another location. The results revealed that when participants were informed that a target was more likely to occur at the cued location, only those with high cognitive ability showed an inhibition effect at the opposite end of the cued object (separated from its original location). In contrast, the magnitude of location effect (separated from the object) did not differ between the high and low control groups. Our findings not only support the view that object effect is related with cognitive control but also suggest that the direction of object effect varies across tasks.

keywords
인지적 통제, 대상효과, 위치효과, 주의, cognitive control, object effect, location effect, attention

Reference

1.

강해인, 현주석 (2011). 시각작업기억 처리 단계에 따른 주의 자원 활용 특성. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23, 487-504.

2.

권미경, 김민식 (2002). 움직이는 대상에서의주의의 대상 효과와 군집화 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 14, 345-358.

3.

민수정, 김민식, 이도준, 김가민 (2013). 작업기억 부하에 의한 방추상 얼굴영역의 방해자극 관련 정보처리의 감소. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 25, 1-24.

4.

민윤기, 김보성, 정종욱 (2008). 대상- 및 공간-기반 주의가 작업기억에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 19, 125-142.

5.

이현규, 김민식 (2009). 자극 친숙성이 작업기억에 의한 주의 유도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 21, 129-145.

6.

Awh, E., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz. (1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 780–790.

7.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2003(4), 829–839.

8.

Bengson, J. J., & Mangun, G. R. (2011). Individual working memory capacity is uniquely correlated with feature-based attention when combined with spatial attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 86–102.

9.

Bleckley, M. K., Durso, F. T., Crutchfield, J. M., Engle, & Khanna, M. M. (2003). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 884–889.

10.

Bleckley, M. K., Foster, J. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Working memory capacity accounts for the ability to switch between object-based and location-based allocation of visual attention. Memory & Cognition, 43, 379–388.

11.

Castel, A. D., Pratt, J., & Craik, F. I. M. (2003). The role of spatial working memory in inhibition of return: Evidence from divided attention tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 970–981.

12.

Chou, W. L., & Yeh, S. L. (2008). Location- and object-based inhibition of return are affected by different kinds of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1761–1768.

13.

Chou, W. L., Yeh, S. L., & Chen, C. C. (2014). Distinct mechanisms subserve location- and object-based visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8.

14.

Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.

15.

de-Wit, L. H., Kentridge, R. W., & Milner, A. D. (2009). Object-based attention and visual area LO. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1483–1490.

16.

Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501-517.

17.

Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177.

18.

Egly, R., & Homa, D. (1984). Sensitization of the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 10, 778–793.

19.

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.

20.

Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.

21.

List, A., & Robertson, L. C. (2007). Inhibition of return and object-based attentional selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1322–1334.

22.

McCrae, C. S., & Abrams, R. A. (2001). Age-related differences in object-and location-based inhibition of return of attention. Psychology & Aging, 16, 437–449.

23.

Pilz, K. S., Roggeveen, A. B., Creighton, S. E., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2012). How prevalent is object-based attention? PLoS ONE, 7(2): e30693. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030693

24.

Possin, K. L., Filoteo, J. V., Song, D. D., & Salmon, D. P. (2009). Space-based but not object-based inhibition of return is impaired in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1694–1700.

25.

Reppa, I., & Schmidt, W. C., & Leek, E. C. (2012). Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 43–69.

26.

Smid, H. G. O. M., Bruggeman, R., & Martens, S. (2013). Fragmented perception: Slower space-based but faster object-based attention in recent-onset psychosis with and without schizophrenia. PLoS ONE, 8(3): e59983. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059983

27.

Smid, H. G. O. M., Martens, S., de Witte, M. R., & Bruggeman, R. (2013). Inflexible minds:Impaired attention switching in recent-onset schizophrenia. PLoS ONE, 8(10): e78062. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078062

28.

Smyth, M. M. (1996). Interference with rehearsal in spatial working memory in the absence of eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 940–949.

29.

Tassinari, G., Aglioti, S., Chelazzi, L., Peru, A., & Berlucchi, G. (1994). Do peripheral non-informative cues induce early facilitation of target detection? Vision Research, 34, 179–189.

30.

Tipper, S. P., Jereat, L. M., & Burak, A. L. (1994). Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 479-299.

31.

Turner, M., & Engle, R. (1989). Is working memory task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.

32.

Vecera, S. P., & Farah, M. J. (1994). Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 146–160.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy