Jan Theeuwes

Perceptual selectivity for color and form

Three visual-search experiments tested whether the preattentive parallel stage can-selectively guide the attentive stage to a particular known-to-be-relevant target feature. Subjects searched multielement displays for a salient green circle that had a unique form when surrounded by green nontarget squares or had a unique color when surrounded by red nontarget circles. In the distractor conditions, a salient item in the other dimension was present as well. As an extension of earlier findings (Theeuwes, 1991), the results showed that complete top-down selectivity toward a particular feature was not possible, not even after extended and consistent practice. The results reveal that selectivity depends on the relative discriminability of the stimulus dimensions: the presence of an irrelevant item with a unique color interferes with parallel search for a unique form, and vice versa.

Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets

Two experiments were carried out to investigate the relation between exogenous and endogenous control of visual attention. Subjects searched for a target letter among three nontarget letters that were positioned on an imaginary circle around a fixation point. At different cue-display intervals, a centrally located arrowhead cue reliably indicated the location of the target letter. At different SOAs, a peripheral line segment near one of the letters was either abruptly switched on (Experiment 1) or abruptly switched off (Experiment2). Presenting the central arrowhead after display onset prevents attention from being focused in advance on the critical location. In this unfocused attentional state, both onset and offset transients attracted attention. When the central arrowhead was available in advance, the focusing of attention prior to display onset precluded attention attraction to the location of the onset or offset transient. Contrary to an offset transient, an onset transient presented at the attended location disrupted performance, indicating that an onset within the spotlight of attention attracts attention. The results are reconciled by means of the zoom-lens theory of attention, suggesting that outside the focus of attention, abrupt transients are not capable of attracting attention. Since the size of the zoom lens is under voluntary control, it can be argued that transients do not fulfill the intentionality criterion of automaticity. mt]This study was supported in part by the Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV.

Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection

The present paper argues for the notion that when attention is spread across the visual field in the first sweep of information through the brain visual selection is completely stimulus-driven. Only later in time, through recurrent feedback processing, volitional control based on expectancy and goal set will bias visual selection in a top-down manner. Here we review behavioral evidence as well as evidence from ERP, fMRI, TMS and single cell recording consistent with stimulus-driven selection. Alternative viewpoints that assume a large role for top-down processing are discussed. It is argued that in most cases evidence supporting top-down control on visual selection in fact demonstrates top-down control on processes occurring later in time, following initial selection. We conclude that top-down knowledge regarding non-spatial features of the objects cannot alter the initial selection priority. Only by adjusting the size of the attentional window, the initial sweep of information through the brain may be altered in a top-down way.

Stimulus-Driven Capture and Attentional Set: Selective Search for Color and Visual Abrupt Onsets

Recent evidence suggests that attentional capture is contingent on the attentional control setting induced by the task demands (C. L. Folk, R. Remington, & J. C. Johnston, 1992). Because the experiments on which these conclusions are based can be criticized for several reasons, the contingent capture hypothesis was tested using 2 visual search tasks in which subjects searched multielement displays in which a color singleton and onset singleton were simultaneously present. Both experiments show that the contingent capture hypothesis does not hold: Irrespective of attentional set, attention was captured by the most salient singleton. The findings suggest a stimulus-driven model of performance in which selection is basically determined by the properties of the featural singletons present in the visual field.

Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity

Three visual search experiments tested whether top-down selectivity toward particular stimulus dimensions is possible during preattentive parallel search. Subjects viewed multielement displays in which two salient items, each unique in a different dimension—that is, color and intensity (Experiment 1) or color and form (Experiments 2 and 3)—were simultaneously present. One of the dimensions defined the target; the other dimension served as distractor. The results indicate that when search is performed in parallel, top-down selectivity is not possible. These findings suggest that preattentive parallel search is strongly automatic, because it satisfies both the load-insensitivity and the unintentionally criteria of automaticity.

Our Eyes do Not Always Go Where we Want Them to Go: Capture of the Eyes by New Objects

Observers make rapid eye movements to examine the world around them. Before an eye movement is made, attention is covertly shifted to the location of the object of interest. The eyes typically will land at the position at which attention is directed. Here we report that a goal-directed eye movement toward a uniquely colored object is disrupted by the appearance of a new but task-irrelevant object, unless subjects have a sufficient amount of time to focus their attention on the location of the target prior to the appearance of the new object. In many instances, the eyes started moving toward the new object before gaze started to shift to the color-singleton target. The eyes often landed for a very short period of time (25–150 ms) near the new object. The results suggest parallel programming of two saccades: one voluntary, goal-directed eye movement toward the color-singleton target and one stimulus-driven eye movement reflexively elicited by the appearance of the new object. Neuroanatomical structures responsible for parallel programming of saccades are discussed.

OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences

In the present article, we introduce OpenSesame, a graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. OpenSesame is free, open-source, and cross-platform. It features a comprehensive and intuitive graphical user interface and supports Python scripting for complex tasks. Additional functionality, such as support for eyetrackers, input devices, and video playback, is available through plug-ins. OpenSesame can be used in combination with existing software for creating experiments.

Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture.

Bacon and Egeth (1994) have claimed that color singletons do not interfere with search for a shape singleton when, instead of using asingleton detection mode, participants are forced to use afeature search mode. Bacon and Egeth induced a feature search mode by adding different shape singletons to the display so that observers could not simply respond touniqueness to find the target. We did exactly the same but used larger display sizes to ensure that the target and distractor singletons remained salient. The results show that under these conditions, an irrelevant color singleton interferes with search for a shape singleton. It is argued that the notion of differential search modes may be incorrect and that the results can be explained in terms of bottom-up salience signals.

Programming of endogenous and exogenous saccades: Evidence for a competitive integration model

Participants were required to make a saccade to a uniquely colored target while ignoring the presentation of an onset distractor. The results provide evidence for a competitive integration model of saccade programming that assumes endogenous and exogenous saccades are programmed in a common saccade map. The model incorporates a lateral interaction structure in which saccade-related activation at a specific location spreads to neighboring locations but inhibits distant locations. In addition, there is top-down, location-specific inhibition of locations to which the saccade should not go. The time course of exogenous and endogenous activation in the saccade map can explain a variety of eye movement data, including endpoints, latencies, and trajectories of saccades and the well-known global effect.

Reward Changes Salience in Human Vision via the Anterior Cingulate

Reward-related mesolimbic dopamine steers animal behavior, creating automatic approach toward reward-associated objects and avoidance of objects unlikely to be beneficial. Theories of dopamine suggest that this reflects underlying biases in perception and attention, with reward enhancing the representation of reward-associated stimuli such that attention is more likely to be deployed to the location of these objects. Using measures of behavior and brain electricity in male and female humans, we demonstrate this to be the case. Sensory and perceptual processing of reward-associated visual features is facilitated such that attention is deployed to objects characterized by these features in subsequent experimental trials. This is the case even when participants know that a strategic decision to attend to reward-associated features will be counterproductive and result in suboptimal performance. Other results show that the magnitude of visual bias created by reward is predicted by the response to reward feedback in anterior cingulate cortex, an area with strong connections to dopaminergic structures in the midbrain. These results demonstrate that reward has an impact on vision that is independent of its role in the strategic establishment of endogenous attention. We suggest that reward acts to change visual salience and thus plays an important and undervalued role in attentional control.