Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feature integration and spatial attention: common processes for endogenous and exogenous orienting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research PRPF Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Briand (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:1243–1256, 1998) and Briand and Klein (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:228–241, 1987) demonstrated that spatial cueing effects are larger for detecting conjunction of features than for detecting simple features when spatial attention is oriented exogenously, and not when attention is oriented endogenously. Their results were interpreted as if only exogenous attention affects the posterior spatial attention system that performs the feature binding function attributed to spatial attention by Treisman’s feature integration theory (FIT; 1980). In a series of 6 experiments, we attempted to replicate Briand’s findings. Manipulations of distractor string size and symmetry of stimulus presentation left and right from fixation were implemented in Posner’s cueing paradigm. The data indicate that both exogenous and endogenous cueing address the same attentional mechanism needed for feature binding. The results also limit the generalisability of Briand’s proposal concerning the role of exogenous attention in feature integration. Furthermore, the importance to control the effect of unintended attentional capture in a cueing task is demonstrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At times, the neutral condition is ignored (see Jonides & Mack, 1984) and the overall cueing effect (costs plus benefits) is used (Briand & Klein, 1987).

  2. Only in Briand (1998), two colourful stimuli were used. However, in Briand and Klein (1987) two letters in black were used, which were still strikingly different compared to the irrelevant distractor items.

  3. As endogenous cueing calls for higher cognitive processes, endogenous attentional shifts require more time than the automatic exogenous attentional shifts. As in a first pilot experiment we encountered a large amount of errors in the endogenous condition with a short SOA of 100–200 ms, we enlarged cue–target interval to 800 ms.

  4. In Kawahara and Miyatani (2001), cueing effects were 56–79% smaller, respectively, for the feature and conjunction condition for their uninformative peripheral condition compared to their informative peripheral condition.

References

  • Briand, K. A. (1998). Feature integration and spatial attention: More evidence of a dissociation between endogenous and exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1243–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briand, K. A., & Klein, R. M. (1987). Is Posner’s Beam the same as Treisman’s “Glue”?: On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 228–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Colegate, R. L. (1971). Selective attention and serial processing in briefly presented visual displays. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1972). Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 201–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, S. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, B. S., & Bryant, T. A. (2005). Symbolic control of visual attention: Involuntary orienting is contingent on symbol processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 749–758.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godijn, R., & Theeuwes, J. (2003). The relationship between exogenous and endogenous saccades and attention. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eyes: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Henderickx, D., Maetens, K., Geerinck, T., & Soetens, E. (2009). Modeling the interactions of bottom-up and top-down guidance in visual attention. In L. Paletta & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.), Attention in cognitive systems (pp. 197–211). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Visual Research, 40, 1489–1506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2001). Computational modelling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 194–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt stimulus onset in capturing attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 346–354.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kawahara, J.-I., & Miyatani, M. (2001). The effect of informative and uninformative cueing of attention on feature integration. The Journal of General Psychology, 128, 57–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 55–66). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition. In P. Rabbitt & S. Dornick (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669–682). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal, W., Presti, D. E., & Posner, M. I. (1986). Does attention affect visual feature integration? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 361–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Remington, R. W. (1980). Attention and saccadic eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 726–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Remington, R. W., Johnston, J. C., & Yantis, S. (1992). Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets. Perception and Psychophysics, 51, 279–290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 507–513.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schepherd, M., & Müller, H. J. (1989). Movement versus focussing of visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 46, 146–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime user’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002c). E-Prime, version 1.1. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1985). Preattentive processing in vision. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 31, 156–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1988). Feature and objects: The 14th Bartlett Memorial Lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 201–237.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1991). Search, similarity, and integration of features within and between dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 652–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1993). The Perception of features and objects. In A. D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Awareness, selection, and control (pp. 3–35). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y. (1989a). Do illusory conjunctions support the feature integration theory? A critical review of theory and findings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 394–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y. (1989b). Further comments on feature integration: A reply to Briand and Klein. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 407–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from selective search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    David Henderickx, Kathleen Maetens & Eric Soetens

Authors
  1. David Henderickx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Maetens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Soetens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Henderickx.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henderickx, D., Maetens, K. & Soetens, E. Feature integration and spatial attention: common processes for endogenous and exogenous orienting. Psychological Research 74, 239–254 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0251-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0251-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation