Target–object integration, attention distribution, and object orientation interactively modulate object-based selection

• Published in: Attention, perception & psychophysics perception & psychophysics, 2016-10, Vol.78 (7), p.1968-1984
• Main Authors: Al-Janabi, Shahd, Greenberg, Adam S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Attention; Attention - physiology; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Boundary conditions; Cognitive Psychology; Evidence; Female; Humans; Male; Paradigms; Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology; Psychology; Researchers; Space Perception - physiology; Stimuli; Studies; Visual task performance; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1943-3921; 1943-393X
• DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1126-3

The representational basis of attentional selection can be object-based. Various studies have suggested, however, that object-based selection is less robust than spatial selection across experimental paradigms. We sought to examine the manner by which the following factors might explain this variation: Target–Object Integration (targets ‘on’ vs. part ‘of’ an object), Attention Distribution (narrow vs. wide), and Object Orientation (horizontal vs. vertical). In Experiment 1 , participants discriminated between two targets presented ‘on’ an object in one session, or presented as a change ‘of’ an object in another session. There was no spatial cue—thus, attention was initially focused widely—and the objects were horizontal or vertical. We found evidence of object-based selection only when targets constituted a change ‘of’ an object. Additionally, object orientation modulated the sign of object-based selection: We observed a same-object advantage for horizontal objects, but a same-object cost for vertical objects. In Experiment 2 , an informative cue preceded a single target presented ‘on’ an object or as a change ‘of’ an object (thus, attention was initially focused narrowly). Unlike in Experiment 1 , we found evidence of object-based selection independent of target–object integration. We again found that the sign of selection was modulated by the objects’ orientation. This result may reflect a meridian effect, which emerged due to anisotropies in the cortical representations when attention is oriented endogenously. Experiment 3 revealed that object orientation did not modulate object-based selection when attention was oriented exogenously. Our findings suggest that target–object integration, attention distribution, and object orientation modulate object-based selection, but only in combination.