Ignored visual context does not induce latent learning.

People usually become faster at finding a visual target after repeated exposure to the same search display. This effect, known as contextual cueing, is often thought to rely on a highly efficient learning mechanism, relatively unconstrained by the availability of attentional resources. Consistent with this view, experimental evidence suggests that contextual cueing can be found even when participants are instructed to ignore the repeated visual context, although this learning remains latent until the context receives full attention. The present study explores the contribution of selective attention to contextual cueing in four high-powered preregistered experiments. None of them supported the hypothesis that latent learning can occur without selective attention. In general, our results suggest that selective attention to visual context plays an essential role in both the acquisition and the expression of contextual cueing.

The Use of Vowel Length in Making Voicing Judgments by Native Listeners of English and Spanish: Implications for Rate Normalization.

Among other characteristics, voiced and voiceless consonants differ in voice onset time (VOT; Lisker & Abramson, 1964). In addition, in English, voiced consonants are typically followed by longer vowels than their unvoiced counterparts (Allen & Miller, 1999). In Spanish, this relationship is less systematic (Zimmerman & Sapon, 1958). In two experiments, we investigated perceptual sensitivities of English and Spanish native speakers to following vowel length (VL) in categorizing syllables that ranged from a prevoiced bilabial stop [ba] to a long-lag bilabial stop [pa]. According to our results, English speakers show sensitivity to following vowels with VLs falling within an English-typical range (Experiment 1), but not when vowels are shorter and in a Spanish-typical range (Experiment 2). Interestingly, Spanish native speakers do not show sensitivity to following VL in either condition. These results suggest that VOT-VL tradeoffs in perception reflect phonological sensitivities of listeners and are not reducible to speech rate compensation.

Memory shapes visual search strategies in large-scale environments.

Search is a central visual function. Most of what is known about search derives from experiments where subjects view 2D displays on computer monitors. In the natural world, however, search involves movement of the body in large-scale spatial contexts, and it is unclear how this might affect search strategies. In this experiment, we explore the nature of memory representations developed when searching in an immersive virtual environment. By manipulating target location, we demonstrate that search depends on episodic spatial memory as well as learnt spatial priors. Subjects rapidly learned the large-scale structure of the space, with shorter paths and less head rotation to find targets. These results suggest that spatial memory of the global structure allows a search strategy that involves efficient attention allocation based on the relevance of scene regions. Thus spatial memory may allow less energetically costly search strategies.

Memory and visual search in naturalistic 2D and 3D environments.

The role of memory in guiding attention allocation in daily behaviors is not well understood. In experiments with two-dimensional (2D) images, there is mixed evidence about the importance of memory. Because the stimulus context in laboratory experiments and daily behaviors differs extensively, we investigated the role of memory in visual search, in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) environments. A 3D immersive virtual apartment composed of two rooms was created, and a parallel 2D visual search experiment composed of snapshots from the 3D environment was developed. Eye movements were tracked in both experiments. Repeated searches for geometric objects were performed to assess the role of spatial memory. Subsequently, subjects searched for realistic context objects to test for incidental learning. Our results show that subjects learned the room-target associations in 3D but less so in 2D. Gaze was increasingly restricted to relevant regions of the room with experience in both settings. Search for local contextual objects, however, was not facilitated by early experience. Incidental fixations to context objects do not necessarily benefit search performance. Together, these results demonstrate that memory for global aspects of the environment guides search by restricting allocation of attention to likely regions, whereas task relevance determines what is learned from the active search experience. Behaviors in 2D and 3D environments are comparable, although there is greater use of memory in 3D.

Hitting a target is fundamentally different from avoiding obstacles.

To successfully move our hand to a target, it is important not only to consider the target of our movements but also to consider other objects in the environment that may act as obstacles. We previously found that the time needed to respond to a change in position was considerably longer for a displacement of an obstacle than for a displacement of the target (Aivar, Brenner, & Smeets, 2008. Experimental Brain Research 190, 251-264). In that study, the movement constraints imposed by the obstacles differed from those imposed by the target. To examine whether the latency is really different for targets and obstacles, irrespective of any constraints they impose, we modified the design of the previous experiment to make sure that the constraints were matched. In each trial, two aligned 'objects' of the same size were presented at different distances to the left of the initial position of the hand. Each of these objects could either be a target or a gap (opening between two obstacles). Participants were instructed to pass through both objects. All possible combinations of these two objects were tested: gap-target, target-gap, gap-gap, target-target. On some trials one of the objects changed position after movement onset. Participants systematically responded faster to the displacement of a target than to the displacement of a gap at the same location. We conclude that targets are prioritized over obstacles in movement control.

Comparison of native and non-native phone imitation by English and Spanish speakers.

Experiments investigating phonetic convergence in conversation often focus on interlocutors with similar phonetic inventories. Extending these experiments to those with dissimilar inventories requires understanding the capacity of speakers to imitate native and non-native phones. In the present study, we tested native Spanish and native English speakers to determine whether imitation of non-native tokens differs qualitatively from imitation of native tokens. Participants imitated a [ba]-[pa] continuum that varied in VOT from -60 ms (prevoiced, Spanish [b]) to +60 ms (long lag, English [p]) such that the continuum consisted of some tokens that were native to Spanish speakers and some that were native to English speakers. Analysis of the imitations showed two critical results. First, both groups of speakers demonstrated sensitivity to VOT differences in tokens that fell within their native regions of the VOT continuum (prevoiced region for Spanish and long lag region for English). Secondly, neither group of speakers demonstrated such sensitivity to VOT differences among tokens that fell in their non-native regions of the continuum. These results show that, even in an intentional imitation task, speakers cannot accurately imitate non-native tokens, but are clearly flexible in producing native tokens. Implications of these findings are discussed with reference to the constraints on convergence in interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds.

Avoiding moving obstacles.

To successfully move our hand to a target, we must consider how to get there without hitting surrounding objects. In a dynamic environment this involves being able to respond quickly when our relationship with surrounding objects changes. People adjust their hand movements with a latency of about 120 ms when the visually perceived position of their hand or of the target suddenly changes. It is not known whether people can react as quickly when the position of an obstacle changes. Here we show that quick responses of the hand to changes in obstacle position are possible, but that these responses are direct reactions to the motion in the surrounding. True adjustments to the changed position of the obstacle appeared at much longer latencies (about 200 ms). This is even so when the possible change is predictable. Apparently, our brain uses certain information exceptionally quickly for guiding our movements, at the expense of not always responding adequately. For reaching a target that changes position, one must at some time move in the same direction as the target did. For avoiding obstacles that change position, moving in the same direction as the obstacle is not always an adequate response, not only because it may be easier to avoid the obstacle by moving the other way, but also because one wants to hit the target after passing the obstacle. Perhaps subjects nevertheless quickly respond in the direction of motion because this helps avoid collisions when pressed for time.

Mislocalization of flashes during smooth pursuit hardly depends on the lighting conditions.

Targets that are briefly flashed during smooth pursuit eye movements are mislocalized in the direction of motion (forward shift) and away from the fovea (spatial expansion). Hansen [Hansen, R. M. (1979). Spatial localization during pursuit eye movements. Vision Research 19(11), 1213-1221] reported that these errors are not present for fast motor responses in the dark, whereas Rotman et al. [Rotman, G., Brenner, E., Smeets, J. B. (2004). Quickly tapping targets that are flashed during smooth pursuit reveals perceptual mislocalizations. Experimental Brain Research 156(4), 409-414] reported that they are present for fast motor responses in the light. To evaluate whether the lighting conditions are the critical factor, we asked observers to point to the positions of flashed objects during smooth pursuit either in the dark or with the room lights on. In a first experiment, the flash, which could appear at 1 of 15 different positions, was always shown when the eye had reached a certain spatial position. We found a forward bias and spatial expansion that were independent of the target and ambient luminance. In a second experiment, the flash was always shown at the same retinal position, but the spatial position of the eye at the moment of flash presentation was varied. In this case we found differences between the luminance conditions, in terms of how the errors depended on the velocity and position on the trajectory. We also found specific conditions in which people did not mislocalize the target in the direction of pursuit at all. These findings may account for the above-mentioned discrepancy. We conclude that although the lighting conditions do influence the localization errors under some circumstances, it is certainly not so that such errors are absent whenever the experiment is conducted in the dark.