PubMed · 15724337
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
W Wayt Gibbs. 2005. Considerate computing.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15724337/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Response to joint attention (RJA) is impaired in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and is pivotal to social and communication development. Response to joint attention was examined at 14 and 24 months in 51 children at high risk for autism (siblings of children with autism). Outcome groups at age 3 years included ASD (n = 16), broader autism phenotype (n = 8), and non-broader autism phenotype (n = 27). The ASD group made minimal improvement in RJA between 14 and 24 months, but stability of RJA across tasks increased for all three groups. Significantly, lower RJA was observed for the ASD group at 24 months. Response to joint attention performance at 14 months predicted ASD outcome. Response to joint attention is an important screening and early intervention target.
Drawing portraits upside down is a trick that allows novice artists to reproduce lower-level image features, e.g., contours, while reducing interference from higher-level face cognition. Limiting the available processing time to suffice for lower- but not higher-level operations is a more general way of reducing interference. We elucidate this interference in a novel visual-search task to find a target among distractors. The target had a unique lower-level orientation feature but was identical to distractors in its higher-level object shape. Through bottom-up processes, the unique feature attracted gaze to the target. Subsequently, recognizing the attended object as identically shaped as the distractors, viewpoint invariant object recognition interfered. Consequently, gaze often abandoned the target to search elsewhere. If the search stimulus was extinguished at time T after the gaze arrived at the target, reports of target location were more accurate for shorter (T<500 ms) presentations. This object-to-feature interference, though perhaps unexpected, could underlie common phenomena such as the visual-search asymmetry that finding a familiar letter N among its mirror images is more difficult than the converse. Our results should enable additional examination of known phenomena and interactions between different levels of visual processes.
At first sight, recent studies investigating the temporal limits of attentive tracking show contradictory outcomes. Attentively tracking an object in an ambiguous apparent motion display can have an upper limit of around 0.4 revolutions per second (rps) [Horowitz, T. S., Holcombe, A. O., Wolfe, J. M., Arsenio, H. C., & DiMase, J. S. (2004). Attentional pursuit is faster than attentional saccade. Journal of Vision, 4, 585-603] or 1rps [Verstraten, F. A., Cavanagh, P., & Labianca, A. T. (2000). Limits of attentive tracking reveal temporal properties of attention. Vision Research, 40, 3651-3664.]. Here, we demonstrate that this difference depends on presentation conditions: an important determinant for the temporal limit of attentive tracking appears to be the duty cycle. Tracking performance at high(er) rates decreases to chance with increasing duty cycle, while at low rates duty cycle hardly has an effect on performance. Results are discussed in terms of (dis)engagement of attention.