Abstract
Smilek, Eastwood, and Merikle (2000) demonstrated that the detection of change was facilitated when the target character changed in many rather than few of its features. Specifically, the function relating search response time to display set size was shallower when more features changed than when fewer features changed. The researchers interpreted these results as indicating that large feature changes provide preattentive guidance of focal attention to the location of the change. We tested this preattentive guidance hypothesis by examining change detection performance in the context of a spatial cuing paradigm. The hypothesis predicts that (1) the cost on invalidly cued trials should be less when more features change than when fewer features change, and (2) the features manipulation should have no effect on validly cued trials. In contrast to these predictions, our results show that cuing effects are equivalent across all levels of feature change and that a robust effect of the features manipulation is observable for both validly and invalidly cued trials. We argue that large feature changes do not provide preattentive guidance and in fact can be detected more readilyafter attention is already in place at the target location.
Article PDF
References
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fernandez-Duque, D., &Thornton, I. M. (2000). Change detection without awareness: Do explicit reports underestimate the representation of change in the visual system?Visual Cognition,7, 323–344.
Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., &Remington, R. W. (1996). Selective attention operates at two processing loci. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Essays in honor of Charles Eriksen (pp. 439–458). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Mitroff, S. R., &Simons, D. J. (2002). Changes are not localized before they are explicitly detected.Visual Cognition,9, 937–968.
Mitroff, S. R., Simons, D. J., &Franconeri, S. L. (2002). The siren song of implicit change detection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 798–815.
Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 369–378.
Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 283–290.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 3–25.
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., &Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing nodes: The role of set for spatial locations. In H. L. Pick & B. J. Saltzman (Eds.),Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., &Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes.Psychological Science,8, 368–373.
Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness.Visual Cognition,7, 1–16.
Smilek, D., Eastwood, J. D., &Merikle, P. M. (2000). Does unattended information facilitate change detection?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 480–487.
Thornton, I. M., &Fernandez-Duque, D. (2000). An implicit measure of undetected change.Spatial Vision,14, 21–44.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 202–238.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank Derek Besner, Evan Risko, Diego Fernandez-Duque, Ron Rensink, and Dan Simons for comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stolz, J.A., Jolicoeur, P. Changing features do not guide attention in change detection: Evidence from a spatial cuing paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 870–875 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196714
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196714