4.2 Article

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

Journal

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 1004-1019

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1078-7

Keywords

Covert attention; Perception; Motor control; Saccadic latency; Eyetracking; Sports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present study, we investigated whether peripheral vision can be used to monitor multiple moving objects and to detect single-target changes. For this purpose, in Experiment 1, a modified multiple object tracking (MOT) setup with a large projection screen and a constant-position centroid phase had to be checked first. Classical findings regarding the use of a virtual centroid to track multiple objects and the dependency of tracking accuracy on target speed could be successfully replicated. Thereafter, the main experimental variations regarding the manipulation of to-be-detected target changes could be introduced in Experiment 2. In addition to a button press used for the detection task, gaze behavior was assessed using an integrated eyetracking system. The analysis of saccadic reaction times in relation to the motor response showed that peripheral vision is naturally used to detect motion and form changes in MOT, because saccades to the target often occurred after target-change offset. Furthermore, for changes of comparable task difficulties, motion changes are detected better by peripheral vision than are form changes. These findings indicate that the capabilities of the visual system (e.g., visual acuity) affect change detection rates and that covert-attention processes may be affected by vision-related aspects such as spatial uncertainty. Moreover, we argue that a centroid-MOT strategy might reduce saccade-related costs and that eyetracking seems to be generally valuable to test the predictions derived from theories of MOT. Finally, we propose implications for testing covert attention in applied settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available