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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Antje Nuthmann, Floor de Groot, Falk Huettig, Christian N L Olivers
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