Search

Statistical regularities in our environment enhance perception and modulate the allocation of spatial attention. Surprisingly little is known about how learning-induced changes in spatial attention transfer across tasks. In this study, we investigated whether a spatial attentional bias learned in one task transfers to another. Most of the experiments began with a training phase in which a search target was more likely to be located in one quadrant of the screen than in the other quadrants. An attentional bias toward the high-probability quadrant developed during training (probability cuing). In a subsequent, testing phase, the target's location distribution became random. In addition, the training and testing phases were based on different tasks. Probability cuing did not transfer between visual search and a foraging-like task. However, it did transfer between various types of visual search tasks that differed in stimuli and difficulty. These data suggest that different visual search tasks share a common and transferrable learned attentional bias. However, this bias is not shared by high-level, decision-making tasks such as foraging.

In the attentional boost effect, participants encode images into memory as they perform an unrelated target-detection task. Later memory is better for images that coincided with a target rather than a distractor. This advantage could reflect a broad processing enhancement triggered by target detection, but it could also reflect inhibitory processes triggered by distractor rejection. To test these possibilities, in four experiments we acquired a baseline measure of image memory when neither a target nor a distractor was presented. Participants memorized faces presented in a continuous series (500- or 100-ms duration). At the same time, participants monitored a stream of squares. Some faces appeared on their own, and others coincided with squares in either a target or a nontarget color. Because the processes associated with both target detection and distractor rejection were minimized when faces appeared on their own, this condition served as a baseline measure of face encoding. The data showed that long-term memory for faces coinciding with a target square was enhanced relative to faces in both the baseline and distractor conditions. We concluded that detecting a behaviorally relevant event boosts memory for concurrently presented images in dual-task situations.

In the attentional boost effect, memory for images presented at the same time as unrelated targets (e.g., an orange square) is enhanced relative to images presented at the same time as distractors (e.g., a blue square). One difficulty in understanding the nature of this enhancement is that, in most experiments demonstrating the attentional boost effect, targets have been less common than distractors. As a result, the memory enhancement associated with target detection may have been driven by differences in the relative frequencies of targets and distractors. In four experiments, participants encoded images into memory at the same time that they monitored a second, unrelated stimulus stream for targets. In some conditions, targets were as common as distractors (1:1 ratio); in others, targets were rare (1:6 ratio). The attentional boost effect was present when the target and distractor frequencies were equated, ruling out oddball and distinctiveness effects as explanations. These effects were observed when targets required a buttonpress and when they were covertly counted. Memory enhancements were not observed for images presented at the same time as rare distractor stimuli. We concluded that selectively attending to events that require an overt or covert response enhances the processing of concurrent information.

Images that are presented with targets of an unrelated detection task are better remembered than images that are presented with distractors (the attentional boost effect). The likelihood that any of three mechanisms, attentional cuing, prediction-based reinforcement learning, and perceptual grouping, underlies this effect depends in part on how it is modulated by the relative timing of the target and image. Three experiments demonstrated that targets and images must overlap in time for the enhancement to occur; targets that appear 100 ms before or 100 ms after the image without temporally overlapping with it do not enhance memory of the image. However, targets and images need not be synchronized. A fourth experiment showed that temporal overlap of the image and target is not sufficient, as detecting targets did not enhance the processing of task-irrelevant images. These experiments challenge several simple accounts of the attentional boost effect based on attentional cuing, reinforcement learning, and perceptual grouping.

This study examines interhemispheric interactions in detecting objects that are simultaneously repeated in an array of objects. Previous studies have shown that presenting two identical objects to a single hemifield speeds up repetition detection. This unilateral field advantage (UFA) is often attributed to the relatively low-level processing demands for detecting a perceptual repetition, and more specifically, to more efficient perceptual grouping processes within a hemisphere than between hemispheres. To directly examine the impact of perceptual grouping and task demands on interhemispheric interactions, we asked participants to judge whether four items, one presented in each visual quadrant, were all different, or whether any two were the same, along an instructed dimension. We found that in comparison with the UFA for identical objects, the UFA for repetition detection in accuracy was similar or greater when the matching objects were not perceptually identical and differed in color, size, or viewpoint. Thus, decreasing grouping strength and increasing computational complexity did not reduce the UFA. Results are interpreted in terms of the callosal degradation account of the UFA.