Is contrast just another feature for visual selective attention?
The biased-competition theory of attention [Annual Review of Neuroscience 18 (1995) 193] suggests that attention and stimulus contrast trade off, and implies that high-contrast stimuli should be easy to attend to and hard to ignore. To test this, observers searched displays for a target digit. Observers were well able to exclude high-contrast distractors when attempting to search only among low-contrast stimuli (Experiment 1). In Experiments 2 and 3, location determined which stimuli were relevant. When contrast of relevant and irrelevant stimuli was uncertain (due to contrast varying between trials, Experiment 2), increasing the contrast of distractors impaired performance. However, when contrast was certain (due to blocking of trials, Experiment 3) and targets were of low contrast, high contrast distractors produced less interference than low contrast distractors. The ability of subjects to attend selectively to low vs. high contrast items in Experiments 1 and 3 suggests that selectivity for stimulus contrast might be similar to other types of feature selectivity (e.g., color and location). Such findings are inconsistent with the biased competition theory regarding the interplay of contrast and attention. However, results from Experiment 2 suggest that, when target contrast varies, the default tendency is to attend to high-contrast items.
Pashler
Harold
H
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. hpashler@ucsd.edu
Dobkins
Karen
K
Huang
Liqiang
L
D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D015350:Contrast Sensitivity / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011930:Reaction Time; D035501:Uncertainty