Biomedical subjects

Helga C Arsenio

Publications and source records attributed to Helga C Arsenio.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Do multielement visual tracking and visual search draw continuously on the same visual attention resources?

Multielement visual tracking and visual search are 2 tasks that are held to require visual-spatial attention. The authors used the attentional operating characteristic (AOC) method to determine whether both tasks draw continuously on the same attentional resource (i.e., whether the 2 tasks are mutually exclusive). The authors found that observers can search and track within the same trial significantly better than would be predicted if the 2 tasks were mutually exclusive. In fact, the AOC for tracking and search is similar to that for tracking and auditory monitoring. The results of additional experiments support an attention-switching account for this high level of dual-task performance in which a single attentional resource is efficiently switched between the tracking and search. The results provide important constraints for architectures of visual selective attention and the mechanisms of multielement tracking.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Attentional pursuit is faster than attentional saccade.

How quickly can we shift the focus of visual attention? We compared the rates of two types of attentional shifts: attentional saccades (shifts between objects) and attentional pursuit (shifts along with a moving object). Instead of measuring the time required for a single shift, which confounds shift time with cue interpretation time, we measured the pace at which observers could make multiple successive shifts in a predictable order. We find that successive attentional saccades between objects are quite slow (300-500 ms). The object-based theory of attention predicts that attention should shift between locations more quickly when in pursuit of a moving object. Our results support this theory. Attentional pursuit is substantially faster--taking only 200-250 ms to cover the same distance. "Indexing" a moving object (keeping track of one object) can be done at even faster rates, supporting a distinction between attending to and indexing objects.

Attention↗

PubMed2004

Panoramic search: the interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene.

How do observers search through familiar scenes? A novel panoramic search method is used to study the interaction of memory and vision in natural search behavior. In panoramic search, observers see part of an unchanging scene larger than their current field of view. A target object can be visible, present in the display but hidden from view, or absent. Visual search efficiency does not change after hundreds of trials through an unchanging scene (Experiment 1). Memory search, in contrast, begins inefficiently but becomes efficient with practice. Given a choice between vision and memory, observers choose vision (Experiments 2 and 3). However, if forced to use their memory on some trials, they learn to use memory on all trials, even when reliable visual information remains available (Experiment 4). The results suggest that observers make a pragmatic choice between vision and memory, with a strong bias toward visual search even for memorized stimuli.

Exploratory Behavior↗

PubMed2002

An unbinding problem? The disintegration of visible, previously attended objects does not attract attention.

In seven experiments, observers searched for a scrambled object among normal objects. The critical comparison was between repeated search in which the same set of stimuli remained present in fixed positions in the display for many (>100) trials and unrepeated conditions in which new stimuli were presented on each trial. In repeated search conditions, observers monitored an essentially stable display for the disruption of a clearly visible object. This is an extension of repeated search experiments in which subjects search a fixed set of items for different targets on each trial (Wolfe, Klempen, & Dahlen, 2000) and can be considered as a form of a "change blindness" task. The unrepeated search was very inefficient, showing that a scrambled object does not "pop-out" among intact objects (or vice versa). Interestingly, the repeated search condition was just as inefficient, as if participants had to search for the scrambled target even after extensive experience with the specific change in the specific scene. The results suggest that the attentional processes involved in searching for a target in a novel scene may be very similar to those used to confirm the presence of a target in a familiar scene.

Attention↗