Sarah E. Creighton

How Prevalent Is Object-Based Attention?

Previous research suggests that visual attention can be allocated to locations in space (space-based attention) and to objects (object-based attention). The cueing effects associated with space-based attention tend to be large and are found consistently across experiments. Object-based attention effects, however, are small and found less consistently across experiments. In three experiments we address the possibility that variability in object-based attention effects across studies reflects low incidence of such effects at the level of individual subjects. Experiment 1 measured space-based and object-based cueing effects for horizontal and vertical rectangles in 60 subjects comparing commonly used target detection and discrimination tasks. In Experiment 2 we ran another 120 subjects in a target discrimination task in which rectangle orientation varied between subjects. Using parametric statistical methods, we found object-based effects only for horizontal rectangles. Bootstrapping methods were used to measure effects in individual subjects. Significant space-based cueing effects were found in nearly all subjects in both experiments, across tasks and rectangle orientations. However, only a small number of subjects exhibited significant object-based cueing effects. Experiment 3 measured only object-based attention effects using another common paradigm and again, using bootstrapping, we found only a small number of subjects that exhibited significant object-based cueing effects. Our results show that object-based effects are more prevalent for horizontal rectangles, which is in accordance with the theory that attention may be allocated more easily along the horizontal meridian. The fact that so few individuals exhibit a significant object-based cueing effect presumably is why previous studies of this effect might have yielded inconsistent results. The results from the current study highlight the importance of considering individual subject data in addition to commonly used statistical methods.

Emotion Perception or Social Cognitive Complexity: What Drives Face Processing Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorder?

Some, but not all, relevant studies have revealed face processing deficits among those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In particular, deficits are revealed in face processing tasks that involve emotion perception. The current study examined whether either deficits in processing emotional expression or deficits in processing social cognitive complexity drive face processing deficits in ASD. We tested adults with and without ASD on a battery of face processing tasks that varied with respect to emotional expression processing and social cognitive complexity. Results revealed significant group differences on tasks involving emotional expression processing, but typical performance on a non-emotional but socially complex task. These results support an emotion processing rather than a social complexity explanation for face processing deficits in ASD.

Age-related effects on selective processing of horizontal structure in whole-face context

Age X Viewpoint: F(1,44) = 0.99, p = 0.3241 Context X Viewpoint: F(1,44) = 3.87, p = 0.0556 Age X Context X Viewpoint: F(1,44) = 0.43, p = 0.5147 Age: F(1,48) = 11.08, p = 0.0017 Context: F(1,48) = 0.54, p = 0.4676 Age X Context: F(1,48) = 7.94, p = 0.007 Age: F(1,44) = 11.09, p = 0.0018 Context: F(1,44) = 0.86, p = 0.3591 View: F(1,44) = 15.61, p = 0.0003 Age-related effects on selective processing of horizontal structure in a whole-face context

Emotion perception or social cognitive complexity: What drives face processing deficits in autism spectrum disorder?

Faces convey information about sex, identity, age, ethnic group, and internal emotional state, and typical individuals are expert at encoding and interpreting facial information. Individuals with ASD have difficulties with social perception and cognition, and there has been a great deal of scientific focus on the ability of those individuals with ASDs to processing facial information. Still, there is not a clear consensus as to what the core deficits in face processing are characteristic of ASD. The current study examined whether the anomalies in face processing seen in adults with ASD are better explained as a deficit in processing emotions, or a deficit in processing the complexity of social stimuli. Participants completed a battery of four face processing tasks: identity discrimination, basic expression perception, complex emotion expression, and trustworthiness perception. The tasks either did or did not involve processing facial expressions, and also varied in the level of social cognitive complexity. If the deficits in face processing in ASD are driven by a core deficit in processing emotional expression information, participants with ASD would perform worse on the basic and complex expression perception tasks. In contrast, if their deficit is related to processing socially complex facial information, they would show poorer performance on the complex expression and trustworthiness perception tasks. Results revealed that ASD participants showed worse performance on basic expression recognition task (t(44) = 3.06, p = .004) and the complex expression recognition task t(44) = 4.26, p < .001 compared to typical participants. In contrast, there were no significant group differences in performance on the identification task (t(44) = 1.33, p = .19) or the trustworthy perception task t(44) = .93, p = .36. These results support an emotion processing rather than a social complexity explanation for face processing deficits in ASD. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015.