Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attentional zooming and the global-dominance phenomenon: Effects of level-specific cueing and abrupt visual onset

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In four experiments level-specific cueing of hierarchically structured stimuli was used to test the hypothesis that valid cues can reduce the global-dominance phenomenon. Compound stimuli (Experiments 1 and 2) or simple geometric forms (Experiments 3 and 4) were presented with different SOAs after a valid, an invalid, or a neutral level-specific cue (cue validity 80%). Costs for invalid cues and benefits for valid cues were produced in all experiments. However, a reduction of the global-local RT difference to about zero was achieved only after the reduction of the abrupt visual onset accompanying stimulus presentation in Experiments 2 (with compound stimuli) and 4 (with simple geometric forms). In addition, there was no longer the typical asymmetric-interference pattern (i. e., features of the global level interfere with local identification, but not vice versa) that was one of Navon's (1977) main arguments for assuming a perceptual precedence. It is concluded that the RT that is longer for local than for global identifications is produced by the time needed to refocus visual attention intentionally from the global level, which is focussed at first unintentionally, to the local level.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antes, J. R., & Mann, S. W. (1984). Global-local precedence in picture processing. Psychological Research, 46, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, L. C., & Keuss, P. J. G. (1982). Global precedence as a postperceptual effect: An analysis of speed-accuracy tradeoff functions. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 358–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitmeyer, B. G. (1975). Simple reaction time as a measure of the temporal response properties of transient and sustained channels. Vision Research, 15, 1411–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1977). The hidden preattentive processes. American Psychologist, 32, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castiello, U., & Umiltà, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colgate, R., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. (1973). Selective encoding from multi-element visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Rohrbaugh, J. W. (1970). Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 330–342.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Webb, J. M. (1989). Shifting of attentional focus within and about a visual display. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 175–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, R. W. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukoda, Y., & Stone, J. (1974). Retinal distribution and central projection of Y-, X-, and W-cells of the cat's retina. Journal of Neurophysiology, 37, 749–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greaney, J., & MacRae, A. W. (1992). The order of visual processing: Top-down, bottom-up, middle-out, or none of these? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 255–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, G. R., Canham, L., & Boroughs, J. M. (1983). Forest before trees? It depends where you look. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, C. G., & Townsend, V. (1968). Voluntary attention in peripheral vision and its effects on acuity and differential thresholds. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. E. (1980). Interaction between global and local levels of a form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huges, H. C., Fendrich, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1990). Global versus local processing in the absence of low spatial frequencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 272–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, H. C., Layton, W. M., Baird, J. C., & Lester, L. S. (1984). Global precedence in visual pattern recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 361–371.

    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 

  • Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigma: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimchi, R. & Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 521–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchla, R. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (1979). The order of visual processing. “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out.” Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchla, R. A., Solis-Macias, V., & Hoffman, J. (1983). Attending to different levels of structure in a visual image. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumhansl, C. L. (1982). Abrupt changes in visual stimulation enhance processing of form and location information. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 511–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchical stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty, and stimulus identity. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1989). Do response time advantage and interference reflect the order of processing of global- and local-level information? Perception and Psychophysics, 46, 254–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1990). The effect of visual angle on global and local reaction time depends on the set of visual angles presented. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 489–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, W. J., Lehmkuhle, S., Baro, J. A., & Garzia, R. (1991). The effects of uniform field flicker and blurring on the global precedence effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 289–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna, D., Merino, J. M., & Marcos-Ruiz, R. (1990). Processing dominance of global and local information in visual patterns. Acta Psychologica, 73, 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (1979). Local and global processing: The role of sparsity. Memory & Cognition, 7, 476–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 189–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maylor, E. A., & Hockey, R. (1985). Inhibitory components of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 777–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, J. J. (1956). Influence of knowledge of target location upon the probability of observations of peripherally observable test flashes. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 46, 1069–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1981). Global precedence in attention and decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1161–1174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1989). The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 567–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychological Research, 43, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1983). How many trees does it take to make a forest? Perception, 12, 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1991). Testing a queue hypothesis for the processing of global and local information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Norman, J. (1983). Does global precedence really depend on visual angle? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 955–965.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquet, L. (1992). Global and local processing in nonattended objects: A failure to induce local processing dominance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 512–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquet, L., & Merikle, P. M. (1984). Global precedence: The effect of exposure duration. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 516–540.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. L. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornić (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669–682). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Walker, J. A., Friedrich, F. J., & Rafal, R. D. (1984). Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 4, 1863–1874.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Remington, R. W., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 393–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, L. C., & Lamb, M. R. (1991). Neuropsychological contributions to theories of part/whole organisation. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 299–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, L. C., Lamb, M. R., & Knight, R. T. (1988). Effects of lesions of temporal-parietal junction on perceptual and attentional processing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 3757–3769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., & Gutman, D. (1981). The effect of inattention on form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Gardner, G. T. (1972). Visual processing capacity and attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G. L., Sullivan, M. A., Gish, K., & Sakoda, W. J. (1986). The role of spatial-frequency channels in the perception of local and global structure. Perception, 15, 259–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G. L., & Wilson, J. (1987). Spatial frequency and selective attention to local and global information. Perception, 16, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Verarbeitung hierarchischer Reizmuster mit drei Ebenen: Ein Test der Präzedenzhypothese von Navon. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 38, 113–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, J. T., & Van Gelder, P. (1979). Implications of a transient-sustained dichotomy for the measurement of human performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 625–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y., & Kolbet, L. (1985). Disambiguating ambiguous figures by selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandmacher, J., & Arend, U. (1985). Superiority of global features in classification and matching. Psychological Research, 47, 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M. L. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 562–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M. (1983). On processing dominance: Comment on Pomerantz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 541–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M. (1985). Covered focussing of the attentional gaze. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 546–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, C. B., Juola, J. F., & Koshino, H. (1990). Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S. (1992). Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 295–340.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Thomas H. Stoffer

    Present address: Max-Planck-Institut für Psychologische Forschung, München

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Allgemeine und Experimentelle Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Leopoldstrasse 13, D-80802, München, Germany

    Thomas H. Stoffer

Authors
  1. Thomas H. Stoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoffer, T.H. Attentional zooming and the global-dominance phenomenon: Effects of level-specific cueing and abrupt visual onset. Psychol. Res 56, 83–98 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419715

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419715

Keywords

Search

Navigation