Vincent Di Lollo

Competition for Consciousness Among Visual Events: The Psychophysics of Reentrant Visual Processes

Advances in neuroscience implicate reentrant signaling as the predominant form of communication between brain areas. This principle was used in a series of masking experiments that defy explanation by feed-forward theories. The masking occurs when a brief display of target plus mask is continued with the mask alone. Two masking processes were found: an early process affected by physical factors such as adapting luminance and a later process affected by attentional factors such as set size. This later process is called masking by object substitution, because it occurs whenever there is a mismatch between the reentrant visual representation and the ongoing lower level activity. Iterative reentrant processing was formalized in a computational model that provides an excellent fit to the data. The model provides a more comprehensive account of all forms of visual masking than do the long-held feed-forward views based on inhibitory contour interactions.

What's new in visual masking?

A brief display that is clearly visible when shown alone can be rendered invisible by the subsequent presentation of a second visual stimulus. Several recently described backward masking effects are not predicted by current theories of visual masking, including masking by four small dots that surround (but do not touch) a target object and masking by a surrounding object that remains on display after the target object has been turned off. A crucial factor in both of these effects is attention: almost no masking occurs if attention can be rapidly focused on the target, whereas powerful masking ensues if attention directed at the target is delayed. A new theory of visual masking, inspired by developments in neuroscience, can account for these effects, as well as more traditional masking effects. In addition, the new theory sheds light on related research, such as the attentional blink, inattentional blindness and change blindness.

Object Substitution: A New Form of Masking in Unattended Visual Locations

Can four dots that surround, but do not touch, a target shape act as a mask to reduce target discriminability? Although existing theories of metacontrast and pattern masking say “no,” we report this occurs when targets appear in unpredictable locations. In three experiments, a four-dot mask was compared with a standard metacontrast mask that surrounded the target. Although accuracy was predictably different for the two masks at a central display location in Experiment I, both masks had similar strong effects on accuracy in parafoveal locations. Experiment 2 revealed that both four-dot and metacontrast masking were insensitive to contour proximity in parafoveal display locations, and Experiment 3 showed that four-dot masking could occur even at a central location if attention was distributed among several targets. We propose that targets in unattended locations are coded with low spotiotemporal resolution, leaving them vulnerable to substitution by the four dots when attention is directed to them.

Electrophysiological indices of target and distractor processing in visual search

Attentional selection of a target presented among distractors can be indexed with an event-related potential (ERP) component known as the N2pc. Theoretical interpretation of the N2pc has suggested that it reflects a fundamental mechanism of attention that shelters the cortical representation of targets by suppressing neural activity stemming from distractors. Results from fields other than human electrophysiology, however, suggest that attention does not act solely through distractor suppression; rather, it modulates the processing of both target and distractors. We conducted four ERP experiments designed to investigate whether the N2pc reflects multiple attentional mechanisms. Our goal was to reconcile ostensibly conflicting outcomes obtained in electrophysiological studies of attention with those obtained using other methodologies. Participants viewed visual search arrays containing one target and one distractor. In Experiments 1 through 3, the distractor was isoluminant with the background, and therefore, did not elicit early lateralized ERP activity. This work revealed a novel contralateral ERP component that appears to reflect direct suppression of the cortical representation of the distractor. We accordingly name this component the distractor positivity (PD). In Experiment 4, an ERP component associated with target processing was additionally isolated. We refer to this component as the target negativity (NT). We believe that the N2pc reflects the summation of the PD and NT, and that these discrete components may have been confounded in earlier electrophysiological studies. Overall, this study demonstrates that attention acts on both target and distractor representations, and that this can be indexed in the visual ERP.

New Objects Dominate Luminance Transients in Setting Attentional Priority

Both the sudden appearance of an object and sudden changes in existing object features influence priority in visual search. However, direct comparisons of these influences have not been made under controlled conditions. In 5 visual search experiments, new object onsets were compared directly with changes in the luminance of old objects. Factors included the luminance contrast of items against the background, the magnitude of luminance change, and the probability that these changes were associated with the target item. New objects were consistently more effective in guiding search, such that a new item with very low luminance contrast was equivalent to an old item undergoing a large change in luminance. An important exception was an old item changing in contrast and polarity, which was as effective as the appearance of a new object. This indicates that search priority is biased toward object rather than situational changes.

The attentional blink with targets in different spatial locations

When two targets (T1 and T2) are displayed in rapid succession, accuracy of T2 identification varies as a function of the temporal lag between the targets (attentional blink, AB). In some studies, performance has been found to be most impaired at Lag 1—namely, when T2 followed T1 directly. In other studies, T2 performance at Lag 1 has been virtually unimpaired (Lag 1 sparing). In the present work, we examined how Lag 1 sparing is affected by attentional switches between targets displayed in the same location or in different locations. We found that Lag 1 sparing does not occur when a spatial shift is required between T1 and T2. This suggests that attention cannot be switched to a new location while the system is busy processing another stimulus. The results are explained by a modified version of an attentional gating model (Chun & Potter, 1995; Shapiro & Raymond, 1994).

Visual masking plays two roles in the attentional blink

When two targets are displayed in rapid visual sequence and masked by trailing patterns, identification accuracy is nearly perfect for the first target but follows a U-shaped pattern over temporal lag for the second target. Three experiments examined the role of visual masking in this attentional blink. Experiment 1 compared integration and interruption masks for both targets. Although either mask was effective in producing the blink when applied to the first target, only the interruption mask was effective when applied to the second target. Experiment 2 showed that integration masking of the second target was ineffective over a wide range of accuracy levels. Combining the two forms of masking in Experiment 3 confirmed the dissociation: A combined mask had only a main effect on accuracy for the first target, whereas it produced a qualitatively different pattern over temporal lag for the second target. These results suggest that representations of the target are substituted in consciousness by that of the interruption mask when visual attention is preoccupied.

Rapid serial visual distraction: task-irrelevant items can produce an attentional blink.

When two sequential targets (T1 and T2) are presented within about 600 msec, perception of the second target is impaired. This attentional blink (AB) has been studied by means of two paradigms: rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), in which targets are embedded in a stream of central distractors, and the two-target paradigm, in which targets are presented eccentrically without distractors. We examined the role of distractors in the AB, using a modified two-target paradigm with a central stream of task-irrelevant distractors. In six experiments, the RSVP stream of distractors substantially impaired identification of both T1 and T2, but only when the distractors shared common characteristics with the targets. Without such commonalities, the distractors had no effect on performance. This points to the subjects’ attentional control setting as an important factor in the AB deficit and suggests a conceptual link between the AB and a form of nonspatial contingent capture attributable to distractor processing.

The preattentive emperor has no clothes : a dynamic redressing

Preattentive models of early vision have not been supported by the evidence. Instead, an input filtering system, which is dynamically reconfigured so as to optimize performance on the task at hand, is proposed. As a case in point, the authors examined Sagi and Juleszs (1985a) claim that detection tasks are processed preattentively and efficiently (shallow search slopes), whereas discrimination tasks require focal attention and yield inefficient steep slopes. In 5 visual search experiments, efficiency was found to depend not on the nature of the task but on whether the task is single or dual. The second component of a dual task, whether detection or discrimination, is performed inefficiently if it does not fit the configuration of the input system, which had been set optimally for the first component. But, even the second component is processed efficiently if there is enough time to reconfigure the system after processing the first component.

The attentional blink is governed by a temporary loss of control

Identification of the second of two brief targets is impaired at intertarget lags of less than about 500 msec. We compared two accounts of thisattentional blink (AB) by manipulating the number of digit distractors—and hence the lag—inserted among three letter targets in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of digit distractors. On the resource-depletion hypothesis, longer lags provide more time for processing the leading target, thus releasing resources for the trailing target. On the temporary-loss-of-control (TLC) hypothesis, intervening distractors disrupt the current attentional set, producing a trailing-target deficit. Identification accuracy for trailing targets was unimpaired not only at lag 1 (conventional lag 1 sparing) but also at later lags, if preceded by another target. The results supported the TLC hypothesis but not the resource-depletion hypothesis. We conclude that the AB is caused by a disruption in attentional set when a distractor is presented while the central executive is busy processing a leading target.