Abstract
We used a probe dot procedure to examine the time course of attention in preview search (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). Participants searched for an outline red vertical bar among other new red horizontal bars and old green vertical bars, superimposed on a blue background grid. Following the reaction time response for search, the participants had to decide whether a probe dot had briefly been presented. Previews appeared for 1,000 msec and were immediately followed by search displays. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated a standard preview benefit relative to a conjunction search baseline. In Experiment 2, search was combined with the probe task. Probes were more difficult to detect when they were presented 1,200 msec, relative to 800 msec, after the preview, but at both intervals detection of probes at the locations of old distractors was harder than detection on new distractors or at neutral locations. Experiment 3A demonstrated that there was no difference in the detection of probes at old, neutral, and new locations when probe detection was the primary task and there was also no difference when all of the shapes appeared simultaneously in conjunction search (Experiment 3B). In a final experiment (Experiment 4), we demonstrated that detection on old items was facilitated (relative to neutral locations and probes at the locations of new distractors) when the probes appeared 200 msec after previews, whereas there was worse detection on old items when the probes followed 800 msec after previews. We discuss the results in terms of visual marking and attention capture processes in visual search.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alais, D., Blake, R., &Lee, S.-H. (1998). Visual features that vary together over time group together over space.Nature Neuroscience,1, 160–164.
Blake, R., &Yang, Y. (1997). Spatial and temporal coherence in perceptual binding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,94, 7115–7119.
Cepeda, N. J., Cave, K. R., Bichot, N. P., &Kim, M.-S. (1998). Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 727–746.
Chun, M. M., &Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?Cognitive Psychology,30, 39–78.
Donk, M., &Theeuwes, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 891–900.
Egeth, H. E., &Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation and time course.Annual Review of Psychology,48, 269–297.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R.W., &Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 1030–1044.
Gibson, B. S., &Jiang, Y. (2001). Visual marking and the perception of salience in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 59–73.
Haxby, J. V., Horwitz, B., Ungerleider, L. G., Maisog, J. M., Pietrini, P., &Grady, C. L. (1994). The functional organization of human extrastriate cortex: A PET-rCBF study of selective attention to faces and locations.Journal of Neuroscience,14, 6336–6353.
Humphreys, G.W., Kyllingsbæk, S., Watson, D. G., Olivers, C. N. L., Law, I., &Paulson, O. (2004). Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: A time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 610–635.
Humphreys, G. W., Watson, D. G., &Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Fractionating visual marking: Dual task decomposition of the marking state by timing and modality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 640–660.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., &Marks, L. E. (2002a). Visual marking: Dissociating effects of new and old item set size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 683–702.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., &Marks, L. E. (2002b). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups.Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception & Performance,28, 717–730.
Klein, R. (1988, August 4). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search.Nature,334, 430–431.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., Smith, K. J., &Hulleman, J. (2003). What is “marked” in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 982–996.
Lee, S.-H., &Blake, R. (1999). Visual form created solely from temporal structure.Science,284, 1165–1168.
Leonards, U., Singer, W., &Fahle, M. (1996). The influence of temporal phase differences in texture segmentation.Vision Research,36, 2689–2697.
Müller, H. M., &von Mühlenen, A. (2000). Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: Inhibition of return.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1591–1602.
Olivers, C. N. L., &Humphreys, G.W. (2002). When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down limited capacity inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 22–42.
Olivers, C. N. L., &Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Visual marking and singleton capture: Fractionating the unitary nature of visual selection.Cognitive Psychology,47, 1–42.
Olivers, C. N. L., Humphreys, G.W., Heinke, D., &Cooper, A. C. G. (2002). Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 540–560.
Olivers, C. N. L., Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G.W. (1999). Visual marking of locations and feature maps: Evidence from withindimension defined conjunctions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 679–715.
Pollmann, S., Weidner, R., Humphreys, G. W., Olivers, C. N. L., Müller, K., Lohmann, G., Wiggins, C. J., &Watson, D. G. (2003). Separating distractor rejection and target detection in posterior parietal cortex: An event-related fMRI study of visual marking.NeuroImage,18, 310–323.
Pylyshyn, Z.W., &Storm, R.W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism.Spatial Vision,3, 179–197.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., &Atchley, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 130–134.
Tipper, S. P., Driver, J., &Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centered inhibition of return of visual attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 289–298.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects.Psychological Review,104, 90–122.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 471–481.
Wolfe, J. M., &Pokorny, C. W. (1990). Inhibitory tagging in visual search: A failure to replicate.Perception & Psychophysics,48, 357–362.
Yantis, S., &Hillstrom, A. P. (1994). Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 95–107.
Yantis, S., &Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 166–178.
Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 601–621.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by an MRC grant to G.W.H.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, headed by Neil Macmillan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Humphreys, G.W., Stalmann, B.J. & Olivers, C. An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search. Perception & Psychophysics 66, 713–730 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194967
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194967