Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Object speed and distractor number do not affect attentional allocation in multiple object tracking
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Keeping track of multiple moving objects across dynamic real-world scenarios such as driving, team sports, or crowded social environments is a fundamental challenge for visual attention. We have previously demonstrated that as the number of tracked objects increases, the strength of attentional facilitation allocated to each individual object decreases, limiting tracking success. It is also well established that beyond the number of tracked objects, faster-moving objects and objects embedded amongst higher numbers of distractors are more difficult to track. Are these effects on tracking difficulty also mediated by less effective allocation of attention to tracked targets as in the case of tracking more targets? If so, one should expect the strength of attentional modulation to drop systematically with increasing speed and total number of moving stimuli.
In two experiments (total n = 70), participants were instructed to track moving targets amongst identical distractors while we manipulated object speed (Experiment 1) and number (Experiment 2). As expected, tracking performance declined with both manipulations. However, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) recorded during successful tracking revealed that attentional enhancement of tracked targets compared with distractors did not drop with increasing speed or object number. In summary, bottom-up changes in the stimulus display and top-down attentional manipulations affect tracking performance in independent ways, with the balance between strength of attentional allocation and bottom-up demands of the task determining successful tracking. The allocation of attention itself seems to be determined exclusively by top-down goals rather than being reactive to bottom-up display characteristics.
Open Practices Statement
Participant level data and analysis code for all experiments are available at (
https://osf.io/ypgfs/
) and Experiment 1 was preregistered (
https://osf.io/pxh25/
).
Significance statement
Keeping track of multiple moving objects is fundamental to navigating dynamic real-world scenarios. This ability is accomplished through multifocal attentional selection, which weakens as the number of tracked targets increases. This study asks whether other stimulus manipulations increase tracking difficulty by diluting attentional allocation. Using steady-state visual evoked potentials to measure selective attention during tracking, we demonstrate that both increases in speed and distractor number impair performance, however, they do not affect attentional enhancement of targets. This suggests that top-down attentional control operates independently from bottom-up demands.
Title: Object speed and distractor number do not affect attentional allocation in multiple object tracking
Description:
Abstract
Keeping track of multiple moving objects across dynamic real-world scenarios such as driving, team sports, or crowded social environments is a fundamental challenge for visual attention.
We have previously demonstrated that as the number of tracked objects increases, the strength of attentional facilitation allocated to each individual object decreases, limiting tracking success.
It is also well established that beyond the number of tracked objects, faster-moving objects and objects embedded amongst higher numbers of distractors are more difficult to track.
Are these effects on tracking difficulty also mediated by less effective allocation of attention to tracked targets as in the case of tracking more targets? If so, one should expect the strength of attentional modulation to drop systematically with increasing speed and total number of moving stimuli.
In two experiments (total n = 70), participants were instructed to track moving targets amongst identical distractors while we manipulated object speed (Experiment 1) and number (Experiment 2).
As expected, tracking performance declined with both manipulations.
However, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) recorded during successful tracking revealed that attentional enhancement of tracked targets compared with distractors did not drop with increasing speed or object number.
In summary, bottom-up changes in the stimulus display and top-down attentional manipulations affect tracking performance in independent ways, with the balance between strength of attentional allocation and bottom-up demands of the task determining successful tracking.
The allocation of attention itself seems to be determined exclusively by top-down goals rather than being reactive to bottom-up display characteristics.
Open Practices Statement
Participant level data and analysis code for all experiments are available at (
https://osf.
io/ypgfs/
) and Experiment 1 was preregistered (
https://osf.
io/pxh25/
).
Significance statement
Keeping track of multiple moving objects is fundamental to navigating dynamic real-world scenarios.
This ability is accomplished through multifocal attentional selection, which weakens as the number of tracked targets increases.
This study asks whether other stimulus manipulations increase tracking difficulty by diluting attentional allocation.
Using steady-state visual evoked potentials to measure selective attention during tracking, we demonstrate that both increases in speed and distractor number impair performance, however, they do not affect attentional enhancement of targets.
This suggests that top-down attentional control operates independently from bottom-up demands.
Related Results
Neural Evidence for Feature-based Distractor Inhibition
Neural Evidence for Feature-based Distractor Inhibition
Interference from a salient distractor is typically reduced when the appearance of the distractor follows either spatial or feature-based regularities. While there is a growing bod...
A role for attentional bias in cognitive deficits in chronic pain?
A role for attentional bias in cognitive deficits in chronic pain?
<p>This thesis extends current understanding of cognitive deficits in people with chronic pain, specifically those related to attention. Researchers have proposed that attent...
Learned oculomotor avoidance during strong target guidance
Learned oculomotor avoidance during strong target guidance
Visual attention is guided toward behaviorally-relevant objects by target ‘templates’ stored in visual memory. Visual attention also is guided away from nontarget distractors by le...
Measuring Food-Related Attentional Bias
Measuring Food-Related Attentional Bias
Objective: Food-related attentional bias has been defined as the tendency to give preferential attention to food-related stimuli. Attentional bias is of interest as studies have fo...
Frame of reference influences the attentional allocation in space
Frame of reference influences the attentional allocation in space
Attentional allocation in space is proved to be influenced by objects, showing a more efficient attentional shifting within an object compared to between objects, which is called a...
Neural mechanisms underlying anxiety-related deficits of attentional inhibition: direct ERP evidence from the Pd component
Neural mechanisms underlying anxiety-related deficits of attentional inhibition: direct ERP evidence from the Pd component
Abstract
Behavioral evidence shows that anxious individuals tend to be distracted by irrelevant stimulation not only for threat-related stimuli but also for non-emo...
Target templates and the time course of distractor location learning
Target templates and the time course of distractor location learning
When searching for a shape target, colour distractors typically capture our attention. Capture is smaller when observers search for a fixed target that allows for a feature-specifi...
Drawn to distraction: Anxiety impairs neural suppression of known distractor featuresin visual search
Drawn to distraction: Anxiety impairs neural suppression of known distractor featuresin visual search
When searching for a target, it is possible to suppress the features of a known distractor. This suppression may occur early, preventing distractor processing altogether, or only a...

