Abstract
AbstractWhere we move our eyes during visual search is controlled by the relative saliency and relevance of stimuli in the visual field. However, the visual field is not homogeneous, as both sensory representations and attention change with eccentricity. Here we present an experiment investigating how eccentricity differences between competing stimuli affect saliency- and relevance-driven selection. Participants made a single eye movement to a predefined orientation singleton target that was simultaneously presented with an orientation singleton distractor in a background of multiple homogenously oriented other items. The target was either more or less salient than the distractor. Moreover, each of the two singletons could be presented at one of three different retinal eccentricities, such that both were presented at the same eccentricity, one eccentricity value apart, or two eccentricity values apart. The results showed that selection was initially determined by saliency, followed after about 300 ms by relevance. In addition, observers preferred to select the closer over the more distant singleton, and this central selection bias increased with increasing eccentricity difference. Importantly, it largely emerged within the same time window as the saliency effect, thereby resulting in a net reduction of the influence of saliency on the selection outcome. In contrast, the relevance effect remained unaffected by eccentricity. Together, these findings demonstrate that eccentricity is a major determinant of selection behavior, even to the extent that it modifies the relative contribution of saliency in determining where people move their eyes.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sensory Systems,Language and Linguistics,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference74 articles.
1. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
2. Azzopardi, P., Jones, K. E., & Cowey, A. (1999). Uneven mapping of magnocellular and parvocellular projections from the lateral geniculate nucleus to the striate cortex in the macaque monkey. Vision Research, 39(13), 2179–2189. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(98)00319-8
3. Bahill, A. T., Adler, D., & Stark, L. (1975). Most naturally occurring human saccades have magnitudes of 15 degrees or less. Investigative Ophthalmology, 14(6), 468-469. ://WOS:A1975AE78700008
4. Buetti, S., Cronin, D. A., Madison, A. M., Wang, Z. Y., & Lleras, A. (2016). Towards a Better Understanding of Parallel Visual Processing in Human Vision: Evidence for Exhaustive Analysis of Visual Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 145(6), 672–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000163
5. Carrasco, M., Evert, D. L., Chang, I., & Katz, S. M. (1995). The ecc entricity effect - Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 1241–1261. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208380