Paul A. Skarratt
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. doi:10.3758/app.71.4.964
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Acceptance Date||Dec 30, 2008|
|Publication Date||May 1, 2009|
|Deposit Date||Nov 13, 2014|
|Journal||Attention Perception & Psychophysics|
|Peer Reviewed||Peer Reviewed|
|Keywords||Linguistics and Language; Experimental and Cognitive Psychology; Sensory Systems; Language and Linguistics|
You might also like
Computerized stimuli for studying oddity effects
The role of transients in action observation
Are goal states represented during kinematic imitation?
Real person interaction in visual attention research
Action or attention in social inhibition of return?