Engineering topics

Folk, Charles L.

Publications and source records attributed to Folk, Charles L..

4 records

NASA NTRS1996

Does Involuntary Attentional Capture Curtail Stimulus Processing

Under certain conditions uninformative visual cues at non-target locations increase target RTs. The typical explanation is that visual attention has been involuntarily summoned to the cued location and is unavailable when needed at the target location. Here we present evidence that capture has not just oriented attention away from the target location, but has lead to the processing of stimuli at the location of the uninformative cue.

Remington, Roger W.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Contingent Attentional Capture

Four experiments address the degree of top-down selectivity in attention capture by feature singletons through manipulations of the spatial relationship and featural similarity of target and distractor singletons in a modified spatial cuing paradigm. Contrary to previous studies, all four experiments show that when searching for a singleton target, an irrelevant featural singleton captures attention only when defined by the same feature value as the target. Experiments 2, 3, and 4 provide a potential explanation for this empirical discrepancy by showing that irrelevant singletons can produce distraction effects that are independent of shifts of spatial attention. The results further support the notion that attentional capture is contingent on top-down attention control settings but indicates that such settings can be instantiated at the level of feature values.

Remington, Roger↗

NASA NTRS1994

Attentional Capture Can Depend on Search Mode

We have previously reported that an irrelevant singleton in one color does not capture attention when the target is defined by a singleton in a different color. Here, we show that when subjects are uncertain of the target color, capture occurs even when distractors and targets differ in color. The effects of target certainty on capture are explained in terms of the contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis of Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992).

Remington, Roger W.↗

NASA NTRS1992

The role of spatial attention in visual word processing

Subjects made lexical decisions on a target letter string presented above or below fixation. In Experiments 1 and 2, target location was cued 100 ms in advance of target onset. Responses were faster on validly than on invalidly cued trials. In Experiment 3, the target was sometimes accompanied by irrelevant stimuli on the other side of fixation; in such cases, responses were slowed (a spatial filtering effect). Both cuing and filtering effects on response time were additive with effects of word frequency and lexical status (words vs. nonwords). These findings are difficult to reconcile with claims that spatial attention is less involved in processing familiar words than in unfamiliar words and nonwords. The results can be reconciled with a late-selection locus of spatial attention only with difficulty, but are easily explained by early-selection models.

Mccann, Robert S.↗