Abstract
In five experiments, we investigated the power of targets defined by the onset or offset of one of an object’s parts (contour onsets and offsets) either to guide or to capture visual attention. In Experiment 1, search for a single contour onset target was compared with search for a single contour offset target against a static background of distractors; no difference was found between the efficiency with which each could be detected. In Experiment 2, onsets and offsets were compared for automatic attention capture, when both occurred simultaneously. Unlike in previous studies, the effects of overall luminance change, new-object creation, and number of onset and offset items were controlled. It was found that contour onset and offset items captured attention equally well. However, display size effects on both target types were also apparent. Such effects may have been due to competition for selection between multiple onset and offset stimuli. In Experiments 3 and 4, single onset and offset stimuli were presented simultaneously and pitted directly against one another among a background of static distractors. In Experiment 3, we examined “guided search,” for a target that was formed either from an onset or from an offset among static items. In Experiment 4, the onsets and offsets were uncorrelated with the target location. Similar results occurred in both experiments: target onsets and offsets were detected more efficiently than static stimuli which needed serial search; there remained effects of display size on performance; but there was still no advantage for onsets. In Experiment 5, we examined automatic attention capture by single onset and offset stimuli presented individually among static distractors. Again, there was no advantage for onset over offset targets and a display size effect was also present. These results suggest that, both in isolation and in competition, onsets that do not form new objects neither guide nor gain automatic attention more efficiently than offsets. In addition, in contrast to previous studies in which onsets formed new objects, contour onsets and offsets did not reliably capture attention automatically.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention.Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Folk, C. L., &Annett, S. (1994). Do locally defined feature discontinuities capture attention?Perception & Psychophysics,56, 277–287.
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.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., &Johnston, J. C. (1993).Contingent attentional capture: A reply to Yantis (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 682–685.
Hillstrom, A. P., &Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 399–411.
Humphreys, G. W., Quinlan, P. T., &Riddoch, M. J. (1989). Grouping processes in visual search: Effects of single- and combined feature targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,118, 258–279.
Jonides, J., &Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 346–354.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., &Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information.Cognitive Psychology,24, 175–219.
Miller, J. (1989). The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 567–571.
Quinlan, P. T., &Humphreys, G. W. (1987). Visual search for targets defined by combinations of color, form, shape, and size: An examination of the task constraints on feature and conjunction searches.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 455–472.
Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.
Todd, S., &Kramer, A. F. (1994). Attentional misguidance in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 198–210.
Treisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 676–681.
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., &Johnson, D. N. (1990). Mechanisms of attentional priority.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 812–825.
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.
Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 121–134.
Yantis, S., Meyer, D. E., &Smith, J. E. K. (1991). Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: New tests for stochastic models of cognition and action.Psychological Bulletin,110, 350–374.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the Medical Research Council of Great Britain, and from the Human Frontier Science Programme, to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watson, D.G., Humphreys, G.W. Attention capture by contour onsets and offsets: No special role for onsets. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 583–597 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213264
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213264