August 2023
Volume 23, Issue 9
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2023
Task-irrelevant abrupt onsets disrupt value-related information processing
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Carly Chak
    University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Emily Machniak
    University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Barry Giesbrecht
    University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  Research was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Office and accomplished under cooperative agreement W911NF-19-2-0026 for the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies.
Journal of Vision August 2023, Vol.23, 5806. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5806
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Carly Chak, Emily Machniak, Barry Giesbrecht; Task-irrelevant abrupt onsets disrupt value-related information processing. Journal of Vision 2023;23(9):5806. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5806.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Physical salience and value-related information prioritize attention in search tasks (Anderson et al., 2011; MacLean & Giesbrecht, 2015; Schreji et al., 2008; Yantis & Jonides, 1984). Both priority signals can bias perception rapidly (Hickey et al., 2010), but the value-related signal can persist for a longer duration (Stankevich & Geng, 2015). To further understand the interaction between salience- and value-based priority signals, we investigated whether task-relevant value-related information processing is disrupted by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets. Participants completed a task in which two number cues were displayed amongst four possible parafoveal locations on the screen (150ms). The cue values were the same (1 and 1; 4 and 4) or different (1 and 4; 4 and 1). The cue location provided information about the subsequent target locations in the periphery. The cue-target interval was 1000 ms. At variable points during the interval (200-800 ms), an abrupt onset was presented on either high-value (‘4’), low-value (‘1’), or no-value cue locations. Overall, subjects earned more points (proportion of points earned out of possible points) when the cues were equal values compared to when they were different. Performance suffered the most when the abrupt onset was presented at the end of the cue-target interval. In the equal cue condition, performance was impaired when the abrupt onset appeared at a no-value cue location relative to low or high value cue locations. When the cues were not equal, there was no effect of abrupt onset location. A potential explanation for this finding is that the unique cue conditions could have influenced the number of cues that subjects attended to and that dividing attention across cue locations promotes greater disruption from task-irrelevant abrupt onsets, especially when presented at uninformative locations.

×
×

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.

×