180 likes | 364 Views
DEAD ZONE OF VISUAL ATTENTION REVEALED BY CHANGE BLINDNESS. Igor S. Utochkin Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia isutochkin@inbox.ru. Two patterns of attentional allocation around a focus. Focus. Focus. Periphery. Periphery. Periphery. Periphery.
E N D
DEAD ZONE OF VISUAL ATTENTION REVEALED BY CHANGE BLINDNESS Igor S. Utochkin Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia isutochkin@inbox.ru
Two patterns of attentional allocation around a focus Focus Focus Periphery Periphery Periphery Periphery Inhibitory-surrounds pattern (Bahcall & Kowler, 1999; Cave & Zimmerman, 1997; Caputo & Guerra, 1998; Cutzu & Tsotsos, 2003; Mounts, 2000a, b; Müller et al., 2005; Thakral & Slotnick, 2010, etc.) Gradient pattern (Castiello & Umiltà, 1990; Downing, 1988; Downing & Pinker, 1985; Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972; Eriksen & St. James, 1986; LaBerge, 1983; Mack & Rock, 1998, etc.)
What does determine pattern of allocation? • Task difficulty (Thakral & Slotnick, 2010); • Attentional saliency of a centrally attended item (Müller, Mollenhauer, Rösler & Kleinschmidt, 2005); • Attentional set towards central and peripheral items (focused vs. divided attention) (Müller et al., 2005)
What about natural perception? • Active looking; • Complex continual layouts of various objects; • Prolonged observation; • Internal control of attentional salience through interests is available • Limitation of previous results • Gaze fixation; • Simplistic arrays of discrete objects; • Brief trials; • Attentional salience is controlled through external attentional capture • Change blindness paradigm • Spatial allocation of attention appears necessary to perceive changes (Kahneman et al., 1992; Rensink, 2000; Rensink et al., 1997; Tse, 2004); • Direct manipulations with interests are available (Rensink et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2003; Werner & Thies, 2000)
Experiment 1 Standard change detection task under flickerconditions: find a single changing detail in a picture as soon as possible and identify it (miss responses are allowed)
Stimulation 12 natural scenes with one attractive object or its part Central interests (CI) Marginal interests (MI)
Three change instances per a picture CENTRAL CHANGE
Three change instances per a picture CENTRAL CHANGE NEAR CHANGE
Three change instances per a picture CENTRAL CHANGE NEAR CHANGE FAR CHANGE
Design • Independent Variable: Change location (Central vs. Near vs. Far) • Dependent Variables: • Search time; • Miss rate; • Misidentification rate (successful detection but incorrect recognition)
Results A ‘dead zone’ surrounds center of interest Miss rate Misidentification rate
Is attention to CI what actually causes dead zone pattern? If this is the case… MI CI MI
Experiment 2 Looking for a marginal change (near or far) in the presence of a once noticed central change
Results A ‘dead zone of attention’ surrounds center of interest
Experiment 3 Both marginal changes (near AND far) compete for prior detection
Thank you for your Attention! For more information about this study see: Utochkin, I.S. (in press). Hide-and-seek around center of interest: Dead zone of attention revealed by change blindness. Visual Cognition.