Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches

Laura Dugué, Alice M. Xue, Marisa Carrasco-Queijeiro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Feature and conjunction searches are widely used to study attentional deployment. However, the spatiotemporal behavior of attention integration in these tasks remains under debate. Are multiple search stimuli processed in parallel or sequentially? Does sampling of visual information and attentional deployment differ between these two types of search? If so, how? We used an innovative methodology to estimate the distribution of attention on a single-trial basis for feature and conjunction searches. Observers performed feature- and conjunction-search tasks. They had to detect and discriminate a tilted low-spatial-frequency grating among three low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings (feature search) or low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings and high-spatial-frequency tilted gratings (conjunction search). After a variable delay, two probes were flashed at random locations. Performance in reporting the probes was used to infer attentional deployment to those locations. By solving a second-degree equation, we determined the probability of probe report at the most (P1) and least (P2) attended locations on a given trial. Were P1 and P2 equal, we would conclude that attention had been uniformly distributed across all four locations. Otherwise, we would conclude that visual information sampling and attentional deployment had been nonuniformly distributed. Our results show that processing was nonuniformly distributed across the four locations in both searches, and was modulated periodically over time at ~5 Hz for the conjunction search and ~12 Hz for the feature search.We argue that the former corresponds to the periodicity of attentional deployment during the search, whereas the latter corresponds to ongoing sampling of visual information. Because different locations were not simultaneously processed, this study rules out a strict parallel model for both search types.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number22
JournalJournal of Vision
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Periodicity

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Conjunction search
  • Feature search
  • Periodicity
  • Theta frequency

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches. / Dugué, Laura; Xue, Alice M.; Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa.

In: Journal of Vision, Vol. 17, No. 3, 22, 01.03.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dugué, L, Xue, AM & Carrasco-Queijeiro, M 2017, 'Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches', Journal of Vision, vol. 17, no. 3, 22. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.3.22
Dugué, Laura ; Xue, Alice M. ; Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa. / Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches. In: Journal of Vision. 2017 ; Vol. 17, No. 3.
@article{0a358e3e9cd7405892d70416acaf36ce,
title = "Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches",
abstract = "Feature and conjunction searches are widely used to study attentional deployment. However, the spatiotemporal behavior of attention integration in these tasks remains under debate. Are multiple search stimuli processed in parallel or sequentially? Does sampling of visual information and attentional deployment differ between these two types of search? If so, how? We used an innovative methodology to estimate the distribution of attention on a single-trial basis for feature and conjunction searches. Observers performed feature- and conjunction-search tasks. They had to detect and discriminate a tilted low-spatial-frequency grating among three low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings (feature search) or low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings and high-spatial-frequency tilted gratings (conjunction search). After a variable delay, two probes were flashed at random locations. Performance in reporting the probes was used to infer attentional deployment to those locations. By solving a second-degree equation, we determined the probability of probe report at the most (P1) and least (P2) attended locations on a given trial. Were P1 and P2 equal, we would conclude that attention had been uniformly distributed across all four locations. Otherwise, we would conclude that visual information sampling and attentional deployment had been nonuniformly distributed. Our results show that processing was nonuniformly distributed across the four locations in both searches, and was modulated periodically over time at ~5 Hz for the conjunction search and ~12 Hz for the feature search.We argue that the former corresponds to the periodicity of attentional deployment during the search, whereas the latter corresponds to ongoing sampling of visual information. Because different locations were not simultaneously processed, this study rules out a strict parallel model for both search types.",
keywords = "Attention, Conjunction search, Feature search, Periodicity, Theta frequency",
author = "Laura Dugu{\'e} and Xue, {Alice M.} and Marisa Carrasco-Queijeiro",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1167/17.3.22",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
journal = "Journal of Vision",
issn = "1534-7362",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distinct perceptual rhythms for feature and conjunction searches

AU - Dugué, Laura

AU - Xue, Alice M.

AU - Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Feature and conjunction searches are widely used to study attentional deployment. However, the spatiotemporal behavior of attention integration in these tasks remains under debate. Are multiple search stimuli processed in parallel or sequentially? Does sampling of visual information and attentional deployment differ between these two types of search? If so, how? We used an innovative methodology to estimate the distribution of attention on a single-trial basis for feature and conjunction searches. Observers performed feature- and conjunction-search tasks. They had to detect and discriminate a tilted low-spatial-frequency grating among three low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings (feature search) or low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings and high-spatial-frequency tilted gratings (conjunction search). After a variable delay, two probes were flashed at random locations. Performance in reporting the probes was used to infer attentional deployment to those locations. By solving a second-degree equation, we determined the probability of probe report at the most (P1) and least (P2) attended locations on a given trial. Were P1 and P2 equal, we would conclude that attention had been uniformly distributed across all four locations. Otherwise, we would conclude that visual information sampling and attentional deployment had been nonuniformly distributed. Our results show that processing was nonuniformly distributed across the four locations in both searches, and was modulated periodically over time at ~5 Hz for the conjunction search and ~12 Hz for the feature search.We argue that the former corresponds to the periodicity of attentional deployment during the search, whereas the latter corresponds to ongoing sampling of visual information. Because different locations were not simultaneously processed, this study rules out a strict parallel model for both search types.

AB - Feature and conjunction searches are widely used to study attentional deployment. However, the spatiotemporal behavior of attention integration in these tasks remains under debate. Are multiple search stimuli processed in parallel or sequentially? Does sampling of visual information and attentional deployment differ between these two types of search? If so, how? We used an innovative methodology to estimate the distribution of attention on a single-trial basis for feature and conjunction searches. Observers performed feature- and conjunction-search tasks. They had to detect and discriminate a tilted low-spatial-frequency grating among three low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings (feature search) or low-spatial-frequency vertical gratings and high-spatial-frequency tilted gratings (conjunction search). After a variable delay, two probes were flashed at random locations. Performance in reporting the probes was used to infer attentional deployment to those locations. By solving a second-degree equation, we determined the probability of probe report at the most (P1) and least (P2) attended locations on a given trial. Were P1 and P2 equal, we would conclude that attention had been uniformly distributed across all four locations. Otherwise, we would conclude that visual information sampling and attentional deployment had been nonuniformly distributed. Our results show that processing was nonuniformly distributed across the four locations in both searches, and was modulated periodically over time at ~5 Hz for the conjunction search and ~12 Hz for the feature search.We argue that the former corresponds to the periodicity of attentional deployment during the search, whereas the latter corresponds to ongoing sampling of visual information. Because different locations were not simultaneously processed, this study rules out a strict parallel model for both search types.

KW - Attention

KW - Conjunction search

KW - Feature search

KW - Periodicity

KW - Theta frequency

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016949528&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016949528&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1167/17.3.22

DO - 10.1167/17.3.22

M3 - Article

C2 - 28362897

AN - SCOPUS:85016949528

VL - 17

JO - Journal of Vision

JF - Journal of Vision

SN - 1534-7362

IS - 3

M1 - 22

ER -