Availability of Attention Affects Time-to-contact Estimation

Overview

Journal Exp Brain Res

Specialty Neurology

Date 2018 May 2

PMID 29713757

Citations 4

Authors

Robin Baures

Francois Maquestiaux

Patricia R DeLucia

Alexis Defer

Elise Prigent

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To estimate the time-to-contact (TTC) of a moving object, numerous studies have focused on the type of information or gaze strategy used by the observer. However, it remains to be determined whether and how attention could affect TTC estimation. In particular, how does TTC estimation operate when less attention is available? To answer this question, we conducted two experiments in which the participants had to perform an absolute (Experiment 1) or relative (Experiment 2) prediction-motion task, either alone (i.e., in single-task condition) or along with a secondary, visual working-memory task (i.e., in dual-task condition). In both experiments, we found that TTC estimation was superior in dual-task condition relative to single-task condition. This finding suggests that the reduction of available attention actually improves TTC estimation. We discuss possible explanations as well as theoretical implications for this seemingly counter-intuitive finding. Further research is needed to investigate if (in)attention facilitates or only shifts TTC estimation.

Citing Articles

Interception of vertically approaching objects: temporal recruitment of the internal model of gravity and contribution of optical information.

Delle Monache S, Paolocci G, Scalici F, Conti A, Lacquaniti F, Indovina I Front Physiol. 2023; 14:1266332.

PMID: 38046950 PMC: 10690631. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1266332.

Hand movements influence the perception of time in a prediction motion task.

Li X, Baures R, Cremoux S Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023; 85(4):1276-1286.

PMID: 36991288 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02690-9.

The influence of time structure on prediction motion in visual and auditory modalities.

Qin K, Chen W, Cui J, Zeng X, Li Y, Li Y Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021; 84(6):1994-2001.

PMID: 34725775 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02369-z.

Auditory pitch glides influence time-to-contact judgements of visual stimuli.

King C, Prime S Exp Brain Res. 2019; 237(8):1907-1917.

PMID: 31104086 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-019-05561-8.

References

Zago M, Bosco G, Maffei V, Iosa M, Ivanenko Y, Lacquaniti F . Internal models of target motion: expected dynamics overrides measured kinematics in timing manual interceptions. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 91(4):1620-34. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00862.2003. View

DeLucia P, Liddell G . Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(3):901-14. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.901. View

Schooler J . Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid. Cogn Psychol. 1990; 22(1):36-71. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-m. View

Lakens D . Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:863. PMC: 3840331. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863. View

Olivers C, Nieuwenhuis S . The beneficial effect of concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16(4):265-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01526.x. View

Tresilian J . Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Percept Psychophys. 1995; 57(2):231-45. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206510. View

Barrouillet P, Bernardin S, Portrat S, Vergauwe E, Camos V . Time and cognitive load in working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(3):570-85. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.570. View

Lachter J, Forster K, Ruthruff E . Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(4):880-913. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.880. View

Olivers C, Nieuwenhuis S . The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(2):364-79. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.364. View

10.

Motoyoshi I, Ishii T, Kamachi M . Limited attention facilitates coherent motion processing. J Vis. 2015; 15(13):1. DOI: 10.1167/15.13.1. View

11.

Tresilian J . Hitting a moving target: perception and action in the timing of rapid interceptions. Percept Psychophys. 2005; 67(1):129-49. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195017. View

12.

Cohen N, Squire L . Preserved learning and retention of pattern-analyzing skill in amnesia: dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science. 1980; 210(4466):207-10. DOI: 10.1126/science.7414331. View

13.

Makin A, Poliakoff E . Do common systems control eye movements and motion extrapolation?. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011; 64(7):1327-43. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2010.548562. View

14.

Hosking S, Crassini B . The influence of optic expansion rates when judging the relative time to contact of familiar objects. J Vis. 2011; 11(6). DOI: 10.1167/11.6.20. View

15.

Tresilian J . The accuracy of interceptive action in time and space. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2004; 32(4):167-73. DOI: 10.1097/00003677-200410000-00008. View

16.

Fruchtman-Steinbok T, Kessler Y . Does working memory load facilitate target detection?. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015; 164:10-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.004. View

17.

DeLucia P . Does binocular disparity or familiar size information override effects of relative size on judgements of time to contact?. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005; 58(5):865-86. DOI: 10.1080/02724980443000377. View

18.

Peper L, Bootsma R, Mestre D, Bakker F . Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(3):591-612. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.3.591. View

19.

Lopez-Moliner J, Field D, Wann J . Interceptive timing: prior knowledge matters. J Vis. 2007; 7(13):11.1-8. DOI: 10.1167/7.13.11. View

20.

Lugtigheid A, Welchman A . Evaluating methods to measure time-to-contact. Vision Res. 2011; 51(20):2234-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.019. View