Briand K A, Klein R M
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987 May;13(2):228-41. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.2.228.
In the present study we investigated whether the visually allocated "beam" studied by Posner and others is the same visual attentional resource that performs the role of feature integration in Treisman's model. Subjects were cued to attend to a certain spatial location by a visual cue, and performance at expected and unexpected stimulus locations was compared. Subjects searched for a target letter (R) with distractor letters that either could give rise to illusory conjunctions (PQ) or could not (PB). Results from three separate experiments showed that orienting attention in response to central cues (endogenous orienting) showed similar effects for both conjunction and feature search. However, when attention was oriented with peripheral visual cues (exogenous orienting), conjunction search showed larger effects of attention than did feature search. It is suggested that the attentional systems that are oriented in response to central and peripheral cues may not be the same and that only the latter performs a role in feature integration. Possibilities for future research are discussed.
在本研究中，我们调查了波斯纳等人所研究的视觉分配“光束”是否与在特雷斯曼模型中执行特征整合功能的视觉注意资源相同。通过视觉线索提示受试者注意某个空间位置，并比较在预期和意外刺激位置的表现。受试者在干扰字母中搜索目标字母（R），这些干扰字母要么会引发错觉性结合（PQ），要么不会（PB）。三个独立实验的结果表明，对中央线索做出反应的注意力定向（内源性定向）在结合搜索和特征搜索中表现出相似的效果。然而，当注意力通过外周视觉线索定向时（外源性定向），结合搜索比特征搜索表现出更大的注意力效应。这表明，对中央和外周线索做出反应的注意力系统可能不同，并且只有后者在特征整合中发挥作用。文中还讨论了未来研究的可能性。
