Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:16:02.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eye movements are an important part of the story, but not the whole story

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Kyle R. Cave
Kyle R. Cave*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Amherst, MA 01003. kcave@psych.umass.eduhttp://people.umass.edu/kcave/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some previous accounts of visual search have emphasized covert attention at the expense of eye movements, and others have focused on eye movements while ignoring covert attention. Both selection mechanisms are likely to contribute to many searches, and a full account of search will probably need to explain how the two interact to find visual targets.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e134
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bichot, N. P., Rossi, A. F. & Desimone, R. (2005) Parallel and serial neural mechanisms for visual search in macaque area V4. Science 308:529–34.Google Scholar
Cave, K. R. (2012) FIT: Foundation for an integrative theory. In: From perception to consciousness: Searching for Anne Treisman, ed. Wolfe, J. M. & Robertson, L., pp. 139–45. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cave, K. R. & Zimmerman, J. M. (1997) Flexibility in spatial attention before and after practice. Psychological Science 8:399–403.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. (1998) Switching attention within and between objects: The role of subjective organization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 52:7–16.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. & Cave, K. R. (2013) Perceptual load vs. dilution: The role of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability. Frontiers in Psychology 4:327, 1–14.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. & Cave, K. R. (2014) Constraints on dilution from a narrow attentional zoom reveal how spatial and color cues direct selection. Vision Research 101:125–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z. & Cave, K. R. (2016) Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(8):1072–87. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000168.Google Scholar
Deubel, H. & Schneider, W. X. (1996) Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research 36:1827–37.Google Scholar
Egly, R., Driver, J. & Rafal, R. D. (1994) Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123:161–77. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.123.2.161.Google Scholar
Eriksen, C. W. & St. James, J. D. (1986) Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics 40:225–40.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M. & Yeari, M. (2003) Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18:26–28.Google Scholar
Harms, L. & Bundesen, C. (1983) Color segregation and selective attention in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics 33:11–19.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. E. & Nelson, B. (1981) Spatial selectivity in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics 30:283–90.Google Scholar
Kim, M. S. & Cave, K. R. (1995) Spatial attention in visual search for features and feature conjunctions. Psychological Science 6:376–80.Google Scholar
Lavie, N. (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:75–82.Google Scholar
Mangun, G. R. & Hillyard, S. A. (1995) Mechanisms and models of selective attention. In: Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition, ed. Rugg, M. D. & Coles, M. G. H., pp. 40–85. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F. & Theeuwes, J. (2006) Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: Visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32:1243–65.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & Fisher, D. L. (1987) Eye movements and the perceptual span during visual search. In: Eye movements: From physiology to cognition, ed. O'Regan, J. K. & Levy-Schoen, A., pp. 293–302. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Sanders, A. F. (1970) Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics 13:101–17. doi: 10.1080/00140137008931124.Google Scholar
Shomstein, S. S. & Yantis, S. (2002) Object-based attention: Sensory modulation or priority setting? Perception and Psychophysics 64(1):41–51.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. & Gormican, S. (1988) Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review 95:15–48.Google Scholar
Tsal, Y. & Benoni, H. (2010) Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36:1645–56.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Muroi, M. & MacLeod, C. M. (2011) Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37:319–35.Google Scholar
Woodman, G. F. & Luck, S. J. (1999) Electrophysiological measurement of rapid shifts of attention during visual search. Nature 400:867–69. doi: 10.1038/23698.Google Scholar
Young, A. H. & Hulleman, J. (2013) Eye movements reveal how task difficulty moulds visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 39:168–90.Google ScholarPubMed