Prioritization of looming and receding objects: equal slopes, different intercepts.
Franconeri and Simons (2003) reported that simulated looming objects (marked by a size increase) captured attention, whereas simulated receding objects (marked by a size decrease) did not. This finding has been challenged with the demonstration that receding objects can capture attention when they move in three-dimensional depth. In the present study, we compared the effects of objects that either loomed or receded in depth. The results of two experiments showed that whereas both motion types benefited from attentional prioritization, as judged by their search slopes, looming objects elicited shorter response times (RTs). We conclude that both motion types attract attention during search; however, the RT advantage for looming motion seems to reflect a processing enhancement that occurs outside of selection and is conferred on the basis of motion direction.
Skarratt
Paul A
PA
Durham University, Durham, England. p.skarratt@hull.ac.uk
Cole
Geoff G
GG
Gellatly
Angus R H
AR
D001288:Attention; D003867:Depth Perception; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005364:Field Dependence-Independence; D006801:Humans; D009039:Motion Perception; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011601:Psychophysics; D011930:Reaction Time; D012858:Size Perception