Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A common computational process in cueing and conjunction search tasks

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question of whether Posner’s beam is the same as Treisman’s glue is addressed to construct a computational model that integrates both target and cue information. The cueing and conjunction search tasks are conducted to analyze a common process that may be underlying the tasks. The dynamic interaction between target and cue information produces attentional benefit- and cost-based in the cueing task. Furthermore, the search order for target candidates in a conjunction search task is determined through the integration of target and cue information, which is basically the same as in the cueing task. Our simulations suggest that consistency (or validity) is considered as a computational process that may be commonly involved in the both tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  • Briand KA (1998) Feature integration and spatial attention: more evidence of a dissociation between endogenous and exogenous orienting. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 24(4):1243–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briand KA, Klein RM (1987) Is posner’s “beam” the same as treisman’s “glue?" on the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 13(2):228–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron EL, Tai JC, Carrasco M (2002) Covert attention affects the psychometric function of contrast sensitivity. Vis Res 42(8):949–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colzato LS, Hommel B, Raffone A (2006) What do we learn from binding features? evidence for multilevel feature integration. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 32:705–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford T, Muller H (1992) Spatial and temporal effects of spatial attention on human saccadic eye movements. Vis Res 32(2):293–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dosher BA, Lu ZL (2000) Noise exclusion in spatial attention. Psychol Sci 11(2):139–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein MP, Shimozaki SS, Abbey CK (2002) The footprints of visual attention in the Posner cueing paradigm revealed by classification images. J Vis 2(1):25–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Duque D, Johnson ML (1999) Attention metaphors: how metaphors guide the cognitive psychology of attention. Cognit Sci 23(1):83–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman-Hill S, Wolfe JM (1995) Second-order parallel processing: visual search for the odd item in a subset. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 21(3):531–551

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamker FH (2006) Modeling feature-based attention as an active top-down inference process. Biosystems 86(1–3):91–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Han S, Wan X, Humphreys G (2005) Shifts of spatial attention in perceived 3-d space. Quart J Exp Psychol A 58(12):753–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderickx D, Maetens K, Soetens E (2010) Feature integration and spatial attention: common processes for endogenous and exogenous orienting. Psychol Res 74:239–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Itti L, Koch C, Niebur E (1998) A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20:1254–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawahara JI, Miyatani M (2001) The effect of informative and uninformative cueing of attention on feature integration. J Gen Psychol 128(1):57–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kay J, Phillips WA (1997) Activation functions, computational goals, and learning rules for local processors with contextual guidance. Neural Comput 9:895–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchla R, Chen Z, Evert D (1995) Precue effects in visual search: data or resource limited?. Atten Percept Psychophys 57:441–450

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montagna B, Pestilli F, Carrasco M (2009) Attention trades off spatial acuity. Vis Res 49(7):735–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognit Psychol 9:353–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer SE (1999) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner C, Snyder MI (1975) Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In: The Ribosomal Database Project (ed) Attention and performance. Academic Press, Massachusetts, pp 669–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner M (1980) Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32:3–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal W, Presti DE, Posner MI (1986) Does attention affect visual feature integration? J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform pp 361–369

  • Prinzmetal W, Henderson D, Ivry R (1995) Loosening the constraints on illusory conjunctions: assessing the roles of exposure duration and attention. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 21(6):1362–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sebastiani M, Casagrande M, Martella D, Raffone A (2009) The effects of endogenous and exogenous spatial cueing in a sustained attention task. Cognit Process 10:302–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalev D Lilach; Algom (2000) Stroop and garner effects in and out of posner’s beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 26(3):997–1017

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman A (1980) A feature integration theory of attention. Cognit Psychol 12:97–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman A, Sato S (1990) Conjunction search revisited. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 16(3):459–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman A, Schmidt H (1982) Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognit Psychol 14(1):107–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tsal Y (1989) Further comments on feature integration: a reply to briand and klein. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 15(2):407–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turk M, Pentland A (1991) Face recognition using eigenfaces. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, 1991. Proceedings CVPR ’91, IEEE Computer Society Conference, pp 586–591

  • Vossel S, Thiel CM, Fink GR (2006) Cue validity modulates the neural correlates of covert endogenous orienting of attention in parietal and frontal cortex. NeuroImage 32(3):1257–1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams D, Reingold E (2001) Preattentive guidance of eye movements during triple conjunction search tasks: the effects of feature discriminability and saccadic amplitude. Psychon Bull Rev 8:476–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler I, Czigler I, Sussman E, Horváth J, Balázs L (2005) Preattentive binding of auditory and visual stimulus features. J Cognit Neurosci 17(2):320–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe JM, Cave KR, Franzel SL (1989) Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 15(3):419–433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by MKE and MEST, Korean government, under ITRC NIPA-2010-(C1090-1021-0008) and WCU NRF (No. R31-2008-000-10062-0), respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University 300, Chon-Chon Dong, Jang-Ahn Ku, Suwon, 440-746, Korea

    KangWoo Lee

  2. School of Information and Communication Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, 440-746, South Korea

    Hyunseung Choo

Authors
  1. KangWoo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyunseung Choo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to KangWoo Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, K., Choo, H. A common computational process in cueing and conjunction search tasks. Cogn Process 13, 73–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0426-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0426-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation