PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11916301

Object-based attention: sensory modulation or priority setting?

Abstract

The detection of an invalidly cued target is faster when it appears within a cued object than when it appears in an uncued object equally distant from the cued location; this is a manifestation of object based attention. Five experiments are reported in which it was investigated whether early sensory enhancement (in which attention "spreads" within an attended object but stops at its borders) or a later attentional prioritization mechanism best accounts for these effects. In Experiments 1-4, subjects identified a centrally located target with a buttonpress while attempting to ignore flanking distractors that were mapped to either a compatible or an incompatible response. The flankers appeared either within the object occupied by the target or in a different object but at the same distance from the target. The well-known effect of distance between the target and the flankers on the magnitude of the compatibility effect was replicated. However, whether the target and the flankers were in the same or different objects had no effect on the magnitude of the compatibility effect. In Experiment 5, when attention could not be narrowly focused in advance, object-based modulation of the flanker effect was observed. These results suggest that object-based selection may reflect an object-specific attentional prioritization strategy, rather than object-based attentional modulation of an early sensory representation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sarah Shomstein, Steven Yantis. 2002. Object-based attention: sensory modulation or priority setting?. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194556

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗