| Title |
Object-based selection is contingent on attentional control settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-016-1074-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Eric T. Taylor, Jason Rajsic, Jay Pratt |
| Abstract |
The visual system allocates attention in object-based and location-based modes. However, the question of when attention selects objects and when it selects locations remains poorly understood. In this article, we present variations on two classic paradigms from the object-based attention literature, in which object-based effects are observed only when the object feature matches the task goal of the observer. In Experiment 1, covert orienting was influenced by task-irrelevant rectangles, but only when the target color matched the rectangle color. In Experiment 2, the region of attentional focus was adjusted to the size of task-irrelevant objects, but only when the target color matched the object color. In Experiment 3, we ruled out the possibility that contingent object-based selection is caused by color-based intratrial priming. These demonstrations of contingent object-based attention suggest that object-based selection is neither mandatory nor default, and that object-based effects are contingent on simple, top-down attentional control settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 43% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#721,510
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#26
of 1,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,786
of 303,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.