Suppr超能文献

注意真的偏向于视觉搜索中的最后一个目标位置吗?注意、反应规则、分心物和眼动。

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Apr;26(2):506-514. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01569-x.

Abstract

The visual search and target-target cueing literatures have reached opposite conclusions about whether a shift of attention is biased toward or away from, respectively, previously attended target locations. In this article, we aimed to figure out why. The main differences between the two experimental approaches concern (1) the stimulus-response translation rules ("what" identification keypresses vs. "where" localization responses), (2) the amount of attention required in order to identify the target, and (3) distractor presence or absence. Experiment 1 tested the role of stimulus-response translation rules by requiring both an eye movement "where" response and a keypress "what" response to each target, in a typical search paradigm. Eye movements showed a bias away from the vicinity of the previous target, whereas keypresses showed a bias toward the previous target location, but only when the keypress response repeated. Experiment 2 removed the keypress identification requirement, to test whether reducing the amount of attention to the target would alter the eye movement bias; it did not. Experiment 3 removed the distractors, to test whether eliminating the potential for distractor location effects would alter the eye movement bias; it did, by accentuating the eye movement bias against the last target location. Collectively, the findings revealed that different stimulus-response translation rules and distractor-processing requirements are the main reasons for the discrepancy, while demonstrating that shifts of attention intrinsically tend away from prior target locations. The findings are generally consistent with episodic-retrieval and inhibited spatial-reorienting theories.

摘要

视觉搜索和目标-目标提示线索文献得出了相反的结论,即注意力的转移分别偏向于还是远离之前注意到的目标位置。在本文中,我们旨在找出原因。这两种实验方法的主要区别在于:(1)刺激-反应转换规则(“什么”识别按键与“哪里”定位反应),(2)识别目标所需的注意力程度,以及(3)分心物的存在或缺失。实验 1 通过在典型搜索范式中要求对每个目标进行眼动“何处”反应和按键“什么”反应,测试了刺激-反应转换规则的作用。眼动显示出远离先前目标附近的偏向,而按键则显示出先前目标位置的偏向,但仅在按键重复时才会出现。实验 2 取消了按键识别要求,以测试减少对目标的注意力是否会改变眼动偏向;事实并非如此。实验 3 消除了分心物,以测试消除潜在的分心物位置效应是否会改变眼动偏向;事实证明,它确实通过强调对最后一个目标位置的眼动偏向来做到了这一点。总的来说,这些发现表明,不同的刺激-反应转换规则和分心物处理要求是造成差异的主要原因,同时表明注意力的转移本质上倾向于远离先前的目标位置。这些发现与情节检索和抑制空间重新定向理论基本一致。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验