Todd S. Horowitz

What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it

As you drive into the centre of town, cars and trucks approach from several directions, and pedestrians swarm into the intersection. The wind blows a newspaper into the gutter and a pigeon does something unexpected on your windshield. This would be a demanding and stressful situation, but you would probably make it to the other side of town without mishap. Why is this situation taxing, and how do you cope?

Visual search has no memory

Humans spend a lot of time searching for things, such as roadside traffic signs, soccer balls or tumours in mammograms. These tasks involve the deployment of attention from one item in the visual field to the next. Common sense suggests that rejected items should be noted in some fashion so that effort is not expended in re-examining items that have been attended to and rejected. However, common sense is wrong. Here we asked human observers to search for a letter ‘T’ among letters ‘L’. This search demandsvisual attention and normally proceeds at a rate of 20–30 milliseconds per item. In the critical condition, we randomly relocated all letters every 111 milliseconds. This made it impossible for the subjects to keep track of the progress of the search. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the search was unchanged. Theories of visual search all assume that search relies on accumulating information about the identity of objects over time. Such theories predict that search efficiency will be drastically reduced if the scene is continually shuffled while the observer is trying to search through it. As we show that efficiency is not impaired, the standard theories must be revised.

How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search

Most laboratory visual search tasks involve many searches for the same target, while in the real world we typically change our target with each search (e.g. find the coffee cup, then the sugar). How quickly can the visual system be reconfigured to search for a new target? Here observers searched for targets specified by cues presented at different SOAs relative to the search stimulus. Search for different targets on each trial was compared to search for the same target over a block of trials. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that an exact picture cue acts within 200 ms to make varied target conjunction search as fast and efficient as blocked conjunction search. Word cues were slower and never as effective. Experiment 3 replicated this result with a task that required top-down information about target identity. Experiment 4 showed that the effects of an exact picture cue were not mandatory. Experiments 5 and 6 used pictures of real objects to cue targets by category level.

Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks

In visual search tasks, observers look for targets in displays containing distractors. Likelihood that targets will be missed varies with target prevalence, the frequency with which targets are presented across trials. Miss error rates are much higher at low target prevalence (1%-2%) than at high prevalence (50%). Unfortunately, low prevalence is characteristic of important search tasks such as airport security and medical screening where miss errors are dangerous. A series of experiments show this prevalence effect is very robust. In signal detection terms, the prevalence effect can be explained as a criterion shift and not a change in sensitivity. Several efforts to induce observers to adopt a better criterion fail. However, a regime of brief retraining periods with high prevalence and full feedback allows observers to hold a good criterion during periods of low prevalence with no feedback.

Why is visual search superior in autism spectrum disorder

This study investigated the possibility that enhanced memory for rejected distractor locations underlies the superior visual search skills exhibited by individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We compared the performance of 21 children with ASD and 21 age- and IQ-matched typically developing (TD) children in a standard static search task and a dynamic search task, in which targets and distractors randomly changed locations every 500 ms, precluding the use of memory in search. Children with ASD exhibited overall faster reaction time (RT) relative to TD children, and showed no disruption in search efficiency in the dynamic condition, discounting the possibility that memory for rejected distractors augments their visual search abilities. Analyses of RT x set size functions showed no group differences in slopes but lower intercepts for the ASD group in both static and dynamic search, suggesting that the ASD advantage derived from non-search processes, such as an enhanced ability to discriminate between targets and distractors at the locus of attention. Eye-movement analyses revealed that the ASD and TD groups were similar in the number and spatial distribution of fixations across the search array, but that fixation duration was significantly shorter among children with ASD. Lower intercepts in static search were related to increased symptom severity in children with ASD. In summary, ASD search superiority did not derive from differences in the manner in which individuals with ASD deployed their attention while searching, but from anomalously enhanced perception of stimulus features, which was in turn positively associated with autism symptom severity.

Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches.

Our society relies on accurate performance in visual screening tasks — for example, to detect knives in luggage or tumours in mammograms. These are visual searches for rare targets. We show here that target rarity leads to disturbingly inaccurate performance in target detection: if observers do not find what they are looking for fairly frequently, they often fail to notice it when it does appear.

Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention

Contextual cuing experiments show that when displays are repeated, reaction times to find a target decrease over time even when observers are not aware of the repetition. It has been thought that the context of the display guides attention to the target. The authors tested this hypothesis by comparing the effects of guidance in a standard search task with the effects of contextual cuing. First, in standard search, an improvement in guidance causes search slopes (derived from Reaction Time x Set Size functions) to decrease. In contrast, the authors found that search slopes in contextual cuing did not become more efficient over time (Experiment 1). Second, when guidance was optimal (e.g., in easy feature search), they still found a small but reliable contextual cuing effect (Experiments 2a and 2b), suggesting that other factors, such as response selection, contribute to the effect. Experiment 3 supported this hypothesis by showing that the contextual cuing effect disappeared when the authors added interference to the response selection process. Overall, the data suggest that the relationship between guidance and contextual cuing is weak and that response selection can account for part of the effect.

Tracking unique objects

Is content addressable in the representation that subserves performance in multiple-object-tracking (MOT) experiments? We devised an MOT variant that featured unique, nameable objects (cartoon animals) as stimuli. There were two possible response modes: standard, in which observers were asked to report the locations of all target items, and specific, in which observers had to report the location of a particular object (e.g., “Where is the zebra?”). A measure of capacity derived from accuracy allowed for comparisons of the results between conditions. We found that capacity in the specific condition (1.4 to 2.6 items across several experiments) was always reliably lower than capacity in the standard condition (2.3 to 3.4 items). Observers could locate specific objects, indicating a content-addressable representation. However, capacity differences between conditions, as well as differing responses to the experimental manipulations, suggest that there may be two separate systems involved in tracking, one carrying only positional information, and one carrying identity information as well.

Attention is fast but volition is slow

How swiftly can the object of your attention be changed? Consider two ways to deploy attention: it can be commanded from place to place by a deliberate act of will, or it can run freely without specific instruction. Here we use a visual search task to show that deliberate movement of attention is significantly slower because of an internal limit on the speed of volitional commands.

Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks

In most visual search experiments in the laboratory, objects are presented on an isolated, blank background. In most real world search tasks, however, the background is continuous and can be complex. In six experiments, we examine the ability of the visual system to separate search items from a background. The results support a view in which objects are separated from backgrounds in a single, preattentive step. This is followed by a limited-capacity search process that selects objects that might be targets for further identification. Identity information regarding the objects status (target or distractor) then accumulates through a limited capacity parallel process. The main effect of background complexity is to slow the accumulation of information in this later recognition stage. It may be that recognition is slowed because background noise causes the preattentive segmentation stage to deliver less effectively segmented objects to later stages. Only when backgrounds become nearly identical to the search objects does the background have the effect of slowing item-by-item selection.