Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics.
There is ongoing debate on whether object meaning can be processed outside foveal vision, making semantics available for attentional guidance. Much of the debate has centred on whether objects that do not fit within an overall scene draw attention, in complex displays that are often difficult to con...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2019-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217051 |
id |
doaj-6369a602c60347689d207950ecd2d616 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6369a602c60347689d207950ecd2d6162021-03-03T20:39:56ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01145e021705110.1371/journal.pone.0217051Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics.Antje NuthmannFloor de GrootFalk HuettigChristian N L OliversThere is ongoing debate on whether object meaning can be processed outside foveal vision, making semantics available for attentional guidance. Much of the debate has centred on whether objects that do not fit within an overall scene draw attention, in complex displays that are often difficult to control. Here, we revisited the question by reanalysing data from three experiments that used displays consisting of standalone objects from a carefully controlled stimulus set. Observers searched for a target object, as per auditory instruction. On the critical trials, the displays contained no target but objects that were semantically related to the target, visually related, or unrelated. Analyses using (generalized) linear mixed-effects models showed that, although visually related objects attracted most attention, semantically related objects were also fixated earlier in time than unrelated objects. Moreover, semantic matches affected the very first saccade in the display. The amplitudes of saccades that first entered semantically related objects were larger than 5° on average, confirming that object semantics is available outside foveal vision. Finally, there was no semantic capture of attention for the same objects when observers did not actively look for the target, confirming that it was not stimulus-driven. We discuss the implications for existing models of visual cognition.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217051 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Antje Nuthmann Floor de Groot Falk Huettig Christian N L Olivers |
spellingShingle |
Antje Nuthmann Floor de Groot Falk Huettig Christian N L Olivers Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Antje Nuthmann Floor de Groot Falk Huettig Christian N L Olivers |
author_sort |
Antje Nuthmann |
title |
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
title_short |
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
title_full |
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
title_fullStr |
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
title_sort |
extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2019-01-01 |
description |
There is ongoing debate on whether object meaning can be processed outside foveal vision, making semantics available for attentional guidance. Much of the debate has centred on whether objects that do not fit within an overall scene draw attention, in complex displays that are often difficult to control. Here, we revisited the question by reanalysing data from three experiments that used displays consisting of standalone objects from a carefully controlled stimulus set. Observers searched for a target object, as per auditory instruction. On the critical trials, the displays contained no target but objects that were semantically related to the target, visually related, or unrelated. Analyses using (generalized) linear mixed-effects models showed that, although visually related objects attracted most attention, semantically related objects were also fixated earlier in time than unrelated objects. Moreover, semantic matches affected the very first saccade in the display. The amplitudes of saccades that first entered semantically related objects were larger than 5° on average, confirming that object semantics is available outside foveal vision. Finally, there was no semantic capture of attention for the same objects when observers did not actively look for the target, confirming that it was not stimulus-driven. We discuss the implications for existing models of visual cognition. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217051 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT antjenuthmann extrafovealattentionalcapturebyobjectsemantics AT floordegroot extrafovealattentionalcapturebyobjectsemantics AT falkhuettig extrafovealattentionalcapturebyobjectsemantics AT christiannlolivers extrafovealattentionalcapturebyobjectsemantics |
_version_ |
1714821281523695616 |