Signal detection evidence for limited capacity in visual search.

The nature of capacity limits (if any) in visual search has been a topic of controversy for decades. In 30 years of work, researchers have attempted to distinguish between two broad classes of visual search models. Attention-limited models have proposed two stages of perceptual processing: an unlimited-capacity preattentive stage, and a limited-capacity selective attention stage. Conversely, noise-limited models have proposed a single, unlimited-capacity perceptual processing stage, with decision processes influenced only by stochastic noise. Here, we use signal detection methods to test a strong prediction of attention-limited models. In standard attention-limited models, performance of some searches (feature searches) should only be limited by a preattentive stage. Other search tasks (e.g., spatial configuration search for a "2" among "5"s) should be additionally limited by an attentional bottleneck. We equated average accuracies for a feature and a spatial configuration search over set sizes of 1-8 for briefly presented stimuli. The strong prediction of attention-limited models is that, given overall equivalence in performance, accuracy should be better on the spatial configuration search than on the feature search for set size 1, and worse for set size 8. We confirm this crossover interaction and show that it is problematic for at least one class of one-stage decision models.

The role of location and motion information in the tracking and recovery of moving objects.

Observers in a multiple object tracking task can track about four to five independently moving targets among several moving distractors, even if all of the stimuli disappear for a 300-msec gap. How observers reacquire targets following such a gap reveals what kind of information they can maintain for targets. Previous research has suggested that participants maintain minimal information about a set of moving objects--namely, just their present spatial locations. We report five new experiments that demonstrate retention of location information for at least four objects, and extrapolated motion information for around two objects.

Tracking unique objects.

Is content addressable in the representation that subserves performance in multiple-object-tracking (MOT) experiments? We devised an MOT variant that featured unique, nameable objects (cartoon animals) as stimuli. There were two possible response modes: standard, in which observers were asked to report the locations of all target items, and specific, in which observers had to report the location of a particular object (e.g., "Where is the zebra?"). A measure of capacity derived from accuracy allowed for comparisons of the results between conditions. We found that capacity in the specific condition (1.4 to 2.6 items across several experiments) was always reliably lower than capacity in the standard condition (2.3 to 3.4 items). Observers could locate specific objects, indicating a content-addressable representation. However, capacity differences between conditions, as well as differing responses to the experimental manipulations, suggest that there may be two separate systems involved in tracking, one carrying only positional information, and one carrying identity information as well.

Fixational eye movements are not an index of covert attention.

The debate about the nature of fixational eye movements has revived recently with the claim that microsaccades reflect the direction of attentional shifts. A number of studies have shown an association between the direction of attentional cues and the direction of microsaccades. We sought to determine whether microsaccades in attentional tasks are causally related to behavior. Is reaction time (RT) faster when microsaccades point toward the target than when they point in the opposite direction? We used a dual-Purkinje-image eyetracker to measure gaze position while 3 observers (2 of the authors, 1 naive observer) performed an attentional cuing task under three different response conditions: saccadic localization, manual localization, and manual detection. Critical trials were those on which microsaccades moved away from the cue. On these trials, RTs were slower when microsaccades were oriented toward the target than when they were oriented away from the target. We obtained similar results for direction of drift. Cues, not fixational eye movements, predicted behavior.

How do we track invisible objects?

We previously demonstrated that observers in multiple object tracking experiments can successfully track targets when all the objects simultaneously vanish for periods lasting several hundred milliseconds (Alvarez, Horowitz, Arsenio, Dimase, and Wolfe, 2005). How do observers do this? Since observers can track objects that move behind occluders (e.g., Scholl and Pylyshyn, 1999), they may treat a temporal gap as a case of complete occlusion. If so, performance should improve if occlusion cues (deletion and accretion) are provided and items disappear and reappear one by one (asynchronously), rather than simultaneously. However, we found better performance with simultaneous than with asynchronous disappearance (Experiment 1), whereas occlusion cues were detrimental (Experiment 2). We propose that observers tolerate a gap in tracking by storing the current task state when objects vanish and resuming tracking on the basis of that memory when the objects reappear (a task-switching account).