The allocation of spatial attention in perception of motion

The present work is devoted to the experimental investigation of peculiarities of the influence of perception of a moving object on the simultaneous distribution of attention to the surrounding area depending on whether the given object is the object of attention or not. Detection of the probe stimulus, which appeared unexpectedly ahead, behind, aside from a moving object, or in his absence, was the main task of the observers. One half of the observers were instructed to ignore motion, while another half of the observers were instructed to track it. The study shows that, regardless of the instruction, probe stimulus were detected more efficiently in the presence of motion. Furthermore, the detection of probe stimulus was carried out faster in the case when probe stimulus appeared behind a moving object. Neither formed aim of tracking an object, nor aim of ignoring it affected the distribution of attention, however, the subjects of the «tracking» group systematically demonstrated slow reactions – this fact allows us to make a conclusion about the presence of the essential orientation of attention on the motion of objects in this group of observers. Interpretation and analysis of the results was conducted within the framework of premotor theory of attention (Rizzolatti et al., 1987).

1. Kostin A. N. O registracii dvizhenij glaz [Elektronnyj resurs] // Juzabiliti Bjulleten'. Elektronnyj zhurnal. 2008. № 13. URL: http://www.usabilityprofessionals.ru/UsabilityBulletin-13.aspx?EntryID=694 (data obrashhenija: 25.04.2010)
2. Utochkin I. S. Teoreticheskie i jempiricheskie osnovanija urovnevogo podhoda k vnimaniju // Psihologija. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki. 2008. T. 5. № 3. S. 31–66.
3. Fan J., McCandliss B. D., Sommer T., Raz A., Posner M. I. Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks // Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2002. V. 14. P. 340–347.
4. Findlay J. M., Gilchrist I. D. Active Vision. The Psychology of Looking and Seeing. Oxford Psychology Series. 2003. Book 37.
5. Jonides J. Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement // J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.) Attention and Performance IX. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. P. 187–202.
6. MacAvoy M. G., Gottlieb J. P., Bruce C. J. Smooth-pursuit eye movement representation in the primate frontal eye field // Cerebral Cortex. 1991. V. 1. P. 95–102.
7. Nikolaev A. R., Nakatani C., Plomp G., Jurica P., van Cees L. Eye fixation-related potentials in free viewing identify encoding failures in change detection // NeuroImage. 2011. V. 56. P. 1598–1607.
8. Posner M. I. Orienting of attention // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1980. V. 32. P. 3–25.
9. Rizzolatti G., Riggio L., Dascola I., Umiltá C. Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention // Neuropsychologia. 1987. V. 25. P. 31–40.
10. Utochkin I. S. Redundancy effects of a moving distractor generated by alerting and orienting //Attention, Perception and Psychophysics. 2009. P. 71. P. 1825–1830.
11. Van Donkelaar P., Drew A. S. The allocation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements // Progress in Brain Research. 2002. V. 140. P. 267–277.