November 2002
Volume 2, Issue 7
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   November 2002
The effect of a secondary monitoring task on Multiple Object Tracking
Author Affiliations
  • Carly J. Leonard
    Rutgers University, USA
  • Zenon W. Pylyshyn
    Rutgers University, USA
  • Elias H. Cohen
    Rutgers University, USA
  • John L. Dennis
    Rutgers University, USA
Journal of Vision November 2002, Vol.2, 240. doi:10.1167/2.7.240
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Carly J. Leonard, Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Elias H. Cohen, John L. Dennis; The effect of a secondary monitoring task on Multiple Object Tracking. Journal of Vision 2002;2(7):240. doi: 10.1167/2.7.240.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Previous research has shown that observers are able to track at least four moving targets among identical distractors. According to Pylyshyn's account, tracking uses a preattentive mechanism called a Visual Index (or FINST). Several people have challenged the assumption that MOT is preattentive. Treisman (1993) showed that a simultaneous task of monitoring color changes at the screen border results in poorer performance on both tasks. We hypothesize that a task that involves indexing an additional visual object (e.g., the border) may interfere with tracking, but that a task that involves an already-indexed object might not. Subjects performed a MOT task with 4 targets as well as a simultaneous task involving monitoring the occurrence of a specific color change at one of four locations: on a target, non-target, border, and fixation. Both tracking and monitoring performance were recorded. The results showed that tracking was not significantly affected by the monitoring task regardless of its location (although the trend was in the expected direction, with the best performance occurring when the monitored change was on the target and the worst when on the border). There were, however, significant differences in reaction times to the secondary monitoring task, as well as differences in the frequency with which the monitored events was missed. The longest RT occurred when the change was at fixation and the shortest when it was on the border. Perhaps even more surprising was the consistent finding that the frequency with which the monitored event was missed was very much higher when it occurred on a target. An attempt is made to reconcile these findings with the general assumption that MOT requires attention. Among the relevant factors that are considered is the difficulty of the tracking task and the possible role of inattentional blindness and nontarget inhibition.

Leonard, C. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W., Cohen, E. H., Dennis, J. L.(2002). The effect of a secondary monitoring task on Multiple Object Tracking [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 2( 7): 240, 240a, http://journalofvision.org/2/7/240/, doi:10.1167/2.7.240. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Supported in part by NIMH grant IR01-MH60924 to ZP.
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×