1 / 25

Attention Switching: The Magic Middle

Discover the fascinating world of attention switching, moving your focus without moving your eyes. Dive into Posner’s Beam Theory, Zoom Lens/Gradient Theories, and Open/Close Theory. Follow experiments testing time-independent shifts of attention and how objects affect performance between targets and distractors. Explore findings from studies by Kwak et al. and LaBerge and Brown, diving deep into Signal Detection and the Gradient of Attention. Uncover insights into Posner's beam theory, the influence of distractors on responses, and potential support for the Gradient/Zoom theory.

jnash
Download Presentation

Attention Switching: The Magic Middle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attention Switching: The Magic Middle erin buchanan

  2. What? • Attention switching: • Moving your attention around • Not really your eyes

  3. What? • Attention switching: • Moving your attention around • Not really your eyes

  4. How? • Posner’s Beam Theory (1980) • Zoom Lens/Gradient Theories • Open/Close Theory

  5. Beam Theory

  6. Zoom Lens / Gradient Theory

  7. Open / Close Theory

  8. Experiment 1 • Based on an experiment by Kwak et al (1991) • Tested time independent shifts of attention • Against Posner (same velocity)

  9. Hypotheses • Time independent shifts of attention. • Performance will be affected by objects that appear between target and distractor.

  10. Experiment 1 • Same – different matching task • Targets • T, L • Distractors • O, T, L • All rotated 0, 90, 180, 270

  11. Trial Types – Visual Angle L T T L T L 2 degrees 4 degrees 6 degrees

  12. Trial Types - Distractors T T T T T L O L T L L No Distractor Same Distractor Different Distractor Neutral Distractor

  13. Results - Kwak

  14. Results - Same / Different

  15. Results - Trial Type

  16. Brief Conclusion • No time independent shifts of attention. • Same decisions are faster that different decisions. • Only the different distractors caused a slowing in deciding same/different. • No facilitation was seen for helpful distractors.

  17. What’s that mean? • Posner’s beam theory is only partially supported. • Distractors were seen, but only one affected responses. • Open/Close theory cannot be supported. • Zoom/Gradient theory was not tested.

  18. Experiment 2 • LaBerge and Brown (1989) replication • With the same distractor types added

  19. Hypotheses • Performance will be affected by objects that appear between target and distractor.

  20. Experiment 2 • Original study • Signal Detection • Gradient of attention • New Experiment • Cued Location • Distractors

  21. Experiment 2 - Distractors • Look for an “S” then an “O” • Distractor Types • None • Same – #O# • Neutral – #F# • Different – #C#, #0# • Reverse

  22. Experiment 2 - Reverse

  23. Experiment 2 - Distractors

  24. Problems • Yes/No instead of just Yes? • Analyze hit/miss rates for each distractor?

  25. Brief Conclusions • This experiment may need to be redesigned. • Gradient/Zoom theory may be supported: • That bad information is in there, but degraded. • They are ignoring it anyway.

More Related