Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Prioritization of looming and receding objects: Equal slopes, different intercepts

Skarratt, Paul A.; Cole, Geoff G.; Gellatly, Angus R.H.


Geoff G. Cole

Angus R.H. Gellatly


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. © 2009 The Psychonomic Society, Inc.


Skarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., & Gellatly, A. R. (2009). Prioritization of looming and receding objects: Equal slopes, different intercepts. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 71(4), 964-970.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Dec 30, 2008
Publication Date May 1, 2009
Deposit Date Nov 13, 2014
Journal Attention Perception & Psychophysics
Print ISSN 1943-3921
Electronic ISSN 1943-393X
Publisher Springer Verlag
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 71
Issue 4
Pages 964-970
Keywords Linguistics and Language; Experimental and Cognitive Psychology; Sensory Systems; Language and Linguistics
Public URL
Publisher URL