Fast responses to neglected targets in visual search reflect pre-attentive processes: an exploration of response times in visual neglect.
AE is a patient who suffered a right hemisphere stroke resulting in visual neglect symptoms. In the first experiment, AE neglected a single visual target that was present in half of the trials and appeared in variable and unpredictable positions on the computer screen. The contrast of the target to the screen's background was also varied. AE demonstrated severe neglect for left-sided targets, and yet his RTs to targets reported incorrectly as absent were faster than correct rejections and even right-sided hits. AEs fast "neglect" responses seem to indicate that the target was detected but that he remained unaware of its presence. Counter intuitively, his fast misses got faster as the discriminability of the target decreased. The possibility that fast responses to neglected targets reflected a guessing strategy, used proportionally to the degree of uncertainty of a target presence, was examined. AEs fast misses were indeed faster at lower level of contrast of the stimulus, but his error rate did not tend to approach the chance level as the guessing model would predict. In a second experiment, AE searched for the letter Z, present on half of the trials, among variable sets of distractor letters. In one condition the distractors were all O's and therefore differed from the target by an elementary feature. In the other condition, the distractors were various letters that differed from the target by combinations of features. The key finding was that fast responses to neglected targets occurred only in the simple feature search task and not in the complex features (conjunction) task. We interpret these findings as indicating that AEs pre-attentive processing can detect pop-out targets on the left-hand side, but that the attentional search is faulty and is aborted early. Hence, the patient's attentional system has an "early start" when "pop-out" forms are present, but can also fail to "grab" the detected target; consequently, by not attending to a stimulus, the patient remains unaware of its presence and will quickly respond "no" to present targets.
Laeng
Bruno
B
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Tromsø, Asgårdveien 9, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway. bruno@psyk.uit.no
Brennen
Tim
T
Espeseth
Thomas
T
D001288:Attention; D001364:Awareness; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D004292:Dominance, Cerebral; D006423:Hemianopsia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010468:Perceptual Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D011930:Reaction Time; D012016:Reference Values