Search

We report two experiments investigating the effect of working memory (WM) load on selective attention. Experiment 1 was a modified version of Lavie et al. and confirmed that increasing memory load disrupted performance in the classic flanker task. Experiment 2 used the same manipulation of WM load to probe attention during the viewing of complex scenes while also investigating individual differences in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) traits. In the image-viewing task, we measured the degree to which fixations targeted each of two crucial objects: (1) a social object (a person in the scene) and (2) a non-social object of higher or lower physical salience. We compared the extent to which increasing WM load would change the pattern of viewing of the physically salient and socially salient objects. If attending to the social item requires greater default voluntary top-down resources, then the viewing of social objects should show stronger modulation by WM load compared with viewing of physically salient objects. The results showed that the social object was fixated to a greater degree than the other object (regardless of physical salience). Increased salience drew fixations away from the background leading to slightly increased fixations on the non-social object, without changing fixations on the social object. Increased levels of ADHD-like traits were associated with fewer fixations on the social object, but only in the high-salient, low-load condition. Importantly, WM load did not affect the number of fixations on the social object. Such findings suggest rather surprisingly that attending to a social area in complex stimuli is not dependent on the availability of voluntary top-down resources.

Viewing position effects are commonly observed in reading, but they have only rarely been investigated in object perception or in the realistic context of a natural scene. In two experiments, we explored where people fixate within photorealistic objects and the effects of this landing position on recognition and subsequent eye movements. The results demonstrate an optimal viewing position-objects are processed more quickly when fixation is in the centre of the object. Viewers also prefer to saccade to the centre of objects within a natural scene, even when making a large saccade. A central landing position is associated with an increased likelihood of making a refixation, a result that differs from previous reports and suggests that multiple fixations within objects, within scenes, occur for a range of reasons. These results suggest that eye movements within scenes are systematic and are made with reference to an early parsing of the scene into constituent objects.

While visual saliency may sometimes capture attention, the guidance of eye movements in search is often dominated by knowledge of the target. How is the search for an object influenced by the saliency of an adjacent distractor? Participants searched for a target amongst an array of objects, with distractor saliency having an effect on response time and on the speed at which targets were found. Saliency did not predict the order in which objects in target-absent trials were fixated. The within-target landing position was distributed around a modal position close to the centre of the object. Saliency did not affect this position, the latency of the initial saccade, or the likelihood of the distractor being fixated, suggesting that saliency affects the allocation of covert attention and not just eye movements.

Models of low-level saliency predict that when we first look at a photograph our first few eye movements should be made towards visually conspicuous objects. Two experiments investigated this prediction by recording eye fixations while viewers inspected pictures of room interiors that contained objects with known saliency characteristics. Highly salient objects did attract fixations earlier than less conspicuous objects, but only in a task requiring general encoding of the whole picture. When participants were required to detect the presence of a small target, then the visual saliency of nontarget objects did not influence fixations. These results support modifications of the model that take the cognitive override of saliency into account by allowing task demands to reduce the saliency weights of task-irrelevant objects. The pictures sometimes contained incongruent objects that were taken from other rooms. These objects were used to test the hypothesis that previous reports of the early fixation of congruent objects have not been consistent because the effect depends upon the visual conspicuity of the incongruent object. There was an effect of incongruency in both experiments, with earlier fixation of objects that violated the gist of the scene, but the effect was only apparent for inconspicuous objects, which argues against the hypothesis.