Biomedical subjects

Steven L Franconeri

Publications and source records attributed to Steven L Franconeri.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Do new objects capture attention?

The visual system relies on several heuristics to direct attention to important locations and objects. One of these mechanisms directs attention to sudden changes in the environment. Although a substantial body of research suggests that this capture of attention occurs only for the abrupt appearance of a new perceptual object, more recent evidence shows that some luminance-based transients (e.g., motion and looming) and some types of brightness change also capture attention. These findings show that new objects are not necessary for attention capture. The present study tested whether they are even sufficient. That is, does a new object attract attention because the visual system is sensitive to new objects or because it is sensitive to the transients that new objects create? In two experiments using a visual search task, new objects did not capture attention unless they created a strong local luminance transient.

Attention↗

PubMed2005

The dynamic events that capture visual attention: A reply to Abrams and Christ (2005).

We recently demonstrated that, contrary to previous findings, some types of irrelevant motion are capable of capturing our attention (Franconeri & Simons, 2003). Strikingly, whereas sitmulated looming (a dynamic increase in object size) captured attention, simulated receding (a decrease in object size) did not. Abrams and Christ (2003, 2005) have provided a different interpretation of this evidence, arguing that in each case attention was captured by the onset of motion rather than by motion per se. They argued that the only published finding inconsistent with their motion onset account is our evidence that simulated receding motion failed to capture attention. Abrams and Christ (2005) presented a receding object stereoscopically and found that it did capture attention, leading them to conclude that the motion onset account explains existing data more parsimoniously than our account does. Our reply has three parts. First, we argue that evidence of capture by receding motion is interesting but irrelevant to the debate over whether capture by motion requires a motion onset. Second, we show that the original empirical evidence in support of the motion onset claim (Abrams & Christ, 2003) put the motion-only condition at a critical disadvantage. We present a new experiment that demonstrates strong capture by motion in the absence of a motion onset, showing that motion onsets are not necessary for attention capture by dynamic events. Finally, we outline what is known about the set of dynamic events that capture attention.

Attention↗

PubMed2004

Searching for stimulus-driven shifts of attention.

Several types of dynamic cues (e.g., abrupt onsets, motion) draw attention in visual search tasks even when they are irrelevant. Although these stimuli appear to capture attention in a stimulus-driven fashion, typical visual search tasks might induce an intentional strategy to focus on dynamic events. Because observers can only begin their search when the search display suddenly appears, they might orient to any dynamic display change (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992; Gibson & Kelsey, 1998). If so, the appearance of capture might result from task-induced biases rather than from the properties of the stimulus. In fact, such biases can even create the appearance of stimulus-driven capture by stimuli that typically do not capture attention (Gibson & Kelsey, 1998). The possibility of task-induced, top-down biases plagues the interpretation of all previous studies claiming stimulus-driven attention capture by dynamic stimuli. In two experiments, we attempt to eliminate potential task-induced biases by removing any need to monitor for display changes. In the first experiment, search displays did not change on most trials. In the second experiment, although new search displays appeared on each trial, we ensured that observers never saw the changes, by making them during large saccades. In both cases, dynamic events still received search priority, suggesting that some dynamic stimuli capture attention in a stimulus-driven fashion.

Attention↗

PubMed2003

Moving and looming stimuli capture attention.

Attention capture is often operationally defined as speeded search performance when an otherwise nonpredictive stimulus happens to be the target of a visual search. That is, if a stimulus captures attention, it should be searched with priority even when it is irrelevant to the task. Given this definition, only the abrupt appearance of a new object (see, e.g., Jonides & Yantis, 1988) and one type of luminance contrast change (Enns, Austen, Di Lollo, Rauschenberger, & Yantis, 2001) have been shown to strongly capture attention. We show that translating and looming stimuli also capture attention. This phenomenon does not occur for all dynamic events: We also show that receding stimuli do not attract attention. Although the sorts of dynamic events that capture attention do not fit neatly into a single category, we speculate that stimuli that signal potentially behaviorally urgent events are more likely to receive attentional priority.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

The siren song of implicit change detection.

Although change blindness could suggest that observers represent far less of their visual world than their conscious experience leads them to believe, they could fail to detect changes even if they fully represent all details. Reports of implicit change detection in the absence of awareness are consistent with the notion that observers' representations are more complete than previously thought. However, to provide convincing evidence, studies must separate implicit detection from explicit processes. This article reexamines the 3 primary claims of implicit change detection and, after replicating original findings, provides theoretical and empirical support for alternative, explicit explanations. Even if observers do represent more of the scene than previously thought, change detection might occur only through explicit comparisons.

Color Perception↗