Effects of target enhancement and distractor suppression on multiple object tracking capacity (original) (raw)
Related papers
Visual Attention is Required for Multiple Object Tracking
Journal of Vision, 2013
In the multiple object tracking task, participants attempt to keep track of a moving set of target objects embedded in an identical set of moving distractors. Depending on several display parameters, observers are usually only able to accurately track 3 to 4 objects. Various proposals attribute this limit to a fixed number of discrete indexes (Pylyshyn, 1989), limits in visual attention (Cavanagh & Alvarez, 2005), or "architectural limits" in visual cortical areas (Franconeri, 2013). The present set of experiments examined the specific role of visual attention in tracking using a dual-task methodology in which participants tracked objects while identifying letter probes appearing on the tracked objects and distractors. As predicted by the visual attention model, probe identification was faster and/or more accurate when probes appeared on tracked objects. This was the case even when probes were more than twice as likely to appear on distractors suggesting that some minimum amount of attention is required to maintain accurate tracking performance. When the need to protect tracking accuracy was relaxed, participants were able to allocate more attention to distractors when probes were likely to appear there but only at the expense of large reductions in tracking accuracy. A final experiment showed that people attend to tracked objects even when letters appearing on them are task-irrelevant, suggesting that allocation of attention to tracked objects is an obligatory process. These results support the claim that visual attention is required for tracking objects.
Attentional enhancement during multiple-object tracking
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2009
What is the role of attention in multiple-object tracking? Does attention enhance target representations, suppress distractor representations, or both? It is difficult to ask this question in a purely behavioral paradigm without altering the very attentional allocation one is trying to measure. In the present study, we used event-related potentials to examine the early visual evoked responses to task-irrelevant probes without requiring an additional detection task. Subjects tracked two targets among four moving distractors and four stationary distractors. Brief probes were flashed on targets, moving distractors, stationary distractors, or empty space. We obtained a significant enhancement of the visually evoked P1 and N1 components (~100-150 msec) for probes on targets, relative to distractors. Furthermore, good trackers showed larger differences between target and distractor probes than did poor trackers. These results provide evidence of early attentional enhancement of tracked target items and also provide a novel approach to measuring attentional allocation during tracking.
Target enhancement and distractor suppression in multiple object tracking
2010
In multiple object tracking (MOT), observers keep track of target objects that move haphazardly around a display in the presence of identical distractors. The typical result from this paradigm is that observers can accurately track up to about four objects, with performance declining precipitously beyond this number.
The rich literature on multiple object tracking (MOT) conclusively demonstrates that humans are able to visually track a small number of objects. There is considerably less agreement on what perceptual and cognitive processes are involved. While it is clear that MOT is attentionally demanding, various accounts of MOT performance centrally involve pre-attentional mechanisms as well. In this paper we present an account of object tracking in the ARCADIA cognitive system that treats MOT as dependent upon both preattentive and attention-bound processes. We show that with minimal addition this model replicates a variety of core phenomena in the MOT literature and provides an algorithmic explanation of human performance limitations.
PLoS ONE, 2012
While it was initially thought that attention was space-based, more recent work has shown that attention can also be object-based, in that observers find it easier to attend to different parts of the same object than to different parts of different objects. Such studies have shown that attention more easily spreads throughout an object than between objects. However, it is not known to what extent attention can be confined to just part of an object and to what extent attending to part of an object necessarily causes the entire object to be attended. We have investigated this question in the context of the multiple object tracking paradigm in which subjects are shown a scene containing a number of identical moving objects and asked to mentally track a subset of them, the targets, while not tracking the remainder, the distractors. Previous work has shown that joining each target to a distractor by a solid connector so that each target-distractor pair forms a single physical object, a technique known as target-distractor merging, makes it hard to track the targets, suggesting that attention cannot be restricted to just parts of objects. However, in that study the target-distractor pairs continuously changed length, which in itself would have made tracking difficult. Here we show that it remains difficult to track the targets even when the target-distractor pairs do not change length and even when the targets can be differentiated from the connectors that join them to the distractors. Our experiments suggest that it is hard to confine attention to just parts of objects, at least in the case of moving objects.
The role of eye fixations in concentration and amplification effects during multiple object tracking
Visual Cognition, 2009
When tracking spatially extended objects in a multiple object tracking task, attention is preferentially directed to the centres of those objects (attentional concentration), and this effect becomes more pronounced as object length increases (attentional amplification). However, it is unclear whether these effects depend on differences in attentional allocation or differences in eye fixations. We addressed this question by measuring eye fixations in a dual-task paradigm that required participants to track spatially extended objects, while simultaneously detecting probes that appeared at the centres or near the endpoints of objects. Consistent with previous research, we observed concentration and amplification effects: Probes at the centres of objects were detected more readily than those near their endpoints, and this difference increased with object length. Critically, attentional concentration was observed when probes were equated for distance from fixation during free viewing, and concentration and amplification were observed without eye movements during strict fixation. We conclude that these effects reflect the prioritization of covert attention to particular spatial regions within extended objects, and we discuss the role of eye fixations during multiple object tracking.
Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention
2005
Attention allows us to monitor objects or regions of visual space and select information from them for report or storage. Classical theories of attention assumed a single focus of selection but many everyday activities, such as video games, navigating busy intersections, or watching over children at a swimming pool, require attention to multiple regions of interest. Laboratory tracking tasks have indeed demonstrated the ability to track four or more targets simultaneously. Although the mechanisms by which attention maintains contact with several targets are not yet established, recent studies have identified several characteristics of the tracking process, including properties defining a 'trackable' target, the maximum number of targets that can be tracked, and the hemifield independence of the tracking process. This research also has implications for computer vision, where there is a growing demand for multiple-object tracking.
Journal of Vision, 2009
The ability to track multiple moving objects with attention has been the focus of much research. However, the literature is relatively inconclusive regarding two key aspects of this ability, (1) whether the distribution of attention among the tracked targets is fixed during a period of tracking or is dynamically adjusted, and (2) whether motion information (direction and/or speed) is used to anticipate target locations even when velocities constantly change due to inter-object collisions. These questions were addressed by analyzing target-localization errors. Targets in crowded situations (i.e., those in danger of being lost) were localized more precisely than were uncrowded targets. Furthermore, the response vector (pointing from the target location to the reported location) was tuned to the direction of target motion, and observers with stronger direction tuning localized targets more precisely. Overall, our results provide evidence that multiple-object tracking mechanisms dynamically adjust the spatial distribution of attention in a demand-based manner (allocating more resources to targets in crowded situations) and utilize motion information (especially direction information) to anticipate target locations.
The role of visual attention in multiple object tracking: Evidence from ERPs
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2010
We examined the role of visual attention in the multiple object tracking (MOT) task by measuring the amplitude of the N1 component of the event-related potential (ERP) to probe flashes presented on targets, distractors, or empty background areas. We found evidence that visual attention enhances targets and suppresses distractors (Experiment 1 & 3). However, we also found that when tracking load was light (two targets and two distractors), accurate tracking could be carried out without any apparent contribution from the visual attention system (Experiment 2). Our results suggest that attentional selection during MOT is flexibly determined by task demands as well as tracking load and that visual attention may not always be necessary for accurate tracking.