The Library

Motion onset does not capture attention when subsequent motion is "smooth"

Tools

Sunny, Meera Mary and von Mühlenen, Adrian. (2011) Motion onset does not capture attention when subsequent motion is "smooth". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol.18 (No.6). pp. 1050-1056. ISSN 1069-9384

Preview

PDF
WRAP_SunnyvonMuhlenen.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (288Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0152-3

Abstract

Previous research on the attentional effects of moving objects has shown that motion per se does not capture attention. However, in later studies it was argued that the onset of motion does capture attention. Here, we show that this motion-onset effect critically depends on motion jerkiness—that is, the rate at which the moving stimulus is refreshed. Experiment 1 used search displays with a static, a motion-onset, and an abrupt-onset stimulus, while systematically varying the refresh rate of the moving stimulus. The results showed that motion onset only captures attention when subsequent motion is jerky (8 and 17 Hz), not when it is smooth (33 and 100 Hz). Experiment 2 replaced motion onset with continuous motion, showing that motion jerkiness does not affect how continuous motion is processed. These findings do not support accounts that assume a special role for motion onset, but they are in line with the more general unique-event account.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology

Divisions:

Faculty of Science > Psychology

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Motion perception (Vision), Attention -- Testing

Journal or Publication Title:

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Publisher:

Springer New York LLC

ISSN:

1069-9384

Official Date:

2011

Dates:

Date	Event
2011	Published

Volume:

Vol.18

Number:

No.6

Page Range:

pp. 1050-1056

Identification Number:

10.3758/s13423-011-0152-3

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

University of Warwick

References:

Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science, 14(5), 427-432.
Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2005). Onset but not offset of irrelevant motion disrupts inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(8), 1460-1467.
Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2006). Motion onset captures attention: A rejoinder to Franconeri and Simons (2005). Perception and Psychophysics, 68(1), 114-117.
Christ, S. E., & Abrams, R. A. (2008). The attentional influence of new objects and new motion. Journal of vision, 8(3), 27.1-8.
Christ, S. E., Castel, A. D., & Abrams, R. A. (2008). Capture of Attention by New Motion in Young and Older Adults. Journal of Gerontology, 63(2), 110-116.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The Structure of Attentional Control: Contingent Attentional Capture by Apparent Motion, Abrupt Onset, and Color. Perception, 20(2), 317-329.
Franconeri, S.L., & Simons, D.J. (2003). Moving and looming stimuli capture attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 999–1010.
Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2005). The dynamic events that capture visual attention: A reply to Abrams and Christ (2005). Perception & psychophysics, 67(6), 962-966.
Frick, R. W. (1998). A better stopping rule for conventional statistical tests. Behavior Research Methods, 30(4), 690–697.
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hillstrom, A. P., & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(4), 399-411.
Ludwig, C. J. H., Ranson, A., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2008). Oculomotor capture by transient events: A comparison of abrupt onsets, offsets, motion, and flicker. Journal of Vision, 8(14), 11.
Rauschenberger, R. (2003). Attentional capture by auto- and allo-cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 814-842.
Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(8), 299–309.
Simons, D. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 147-155.
Skarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., & Gellatly, A. R. (2009). Prioritization of looming and receding objects: Equal slopes, different intercepts. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(4), 964-970.
Spalek, T. M., Kawahara, J., & Di Lollo, V. (2009). Flicker is a Primitive Visual Attribute in Visual Search. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 319–322.
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99.
von Mühlenen, A., & Lleras, A. (2007). No-onset looming motion guides spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1297-1310.
von Mühlenen, A., & Müller, H. J. (2000). Perceptual integration of motion and form information: Evidence of parallel-continuous processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 62(3), 517–531.
von Mühlenen, A., Rempel, M. I., & Enns, J. T. (2005). Unique Temporal Change Is the Key to Attentional Capture. Psychological Science, 16(12), 979-986.
Yantis, S., & Egeth, H. E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 661-676.
Yantis, S., & Gibson, B. S. (1994). Object Continuity in Apparent Motion and Attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(2), 182–204.