Research Article PROBABILITY CUING of TARGET LOCATION FACILITATES VISUAL SEARCH IMPLICITLY in NORMAL PARTICIPANTS and PATIENTS with HEMISPATIAL NEGLECT Joy J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article PROBABILITY CUING OF TARGET LOCATION FACILITATES VISUAL SEARCH IMPLICITLY IN NORMAL PARTICIPANTS AND PATIENTS WITH HEMISPATIAL NEGLECT Joy J. Geng and Marlene Behrmann Carnegie Mellon University and the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition Abstract—We explored how variability in the probability of target lo- chy is well established (e.g., Baum, 1979; Greggers & Mauelshagen, cations affects visual search in normal individuals and in patients with 1997). hemispatial neglect, a deficit in attending to the contralesional side of Similarly, the A-not-B error exhibited by infants can be thought of space. Young and elderly normal participants responded faster when as an inability to inhibit the most probabilistic response associated targets appeared in the more probable region than when targets ap- with reward. Smith, Thelen, Titzer, and McLin (1999) have argued peared in the less probable region. Similarly, patients were sensitive to that the A-not-B error is caused by a directional bias in motor planning the distribution of targets, even in the neglected field. Although the at- due in part to the history of looking and reaching to A during the pre- tentional gradient that characterizes neglect was not eliminated, the ceding trial (or trials). Because infants have immature control systems, response facilitation due to the probability distribution was propor- a brief visual input signaling the B trial is too weak to overcome the tionate to that of control participants and equal in magnitude across motor bias. However, if the visual stimulus at B is salient, it can pull the neglected field. All participants exploited the uneven distribution the motor response toward that location (Smith et al., 1999). This sug- of targets to enhance task performance without explicit instructions to gests that although mechanisms supporting simple matching behaviors do so or awareness of biases in their behavior. These results suggest may be modulated by attentional orientation, they may also operate in- that attentional orientation and sensitivity to external probabilities are dependently. possibly dissociable. An early sensory and a late motor mechanism The collection of results from human and nonhuman species impli- are postulated as possibly being involved in the observed probability- cates an evolutionarily primitive mechanism that is sensitive to envi- matching behavior of participants. ronmental regularities that result in behavioral success. The first goal of the present study was to explore whether adult human participants match their behaviors to implicit regularities in target location during Despite their inability to articulate the regularities that drive their a visual search task. Because we were particularly interested in the behavior, normal participants are able to exploit the statistical con- consequences of the probabilistic distribution of targets on attentional tingencies that determine the location of a visual target (Chun & orientation, our second goal was to explore whether individuals with Jiang, 1998; Hoffmann & Kunde, 1999; Lewicki, Czyzewska, & hemispatial neglect, a deficit in attentional orienting, are nevertheless Hoffman, 1987; Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1996; Mayr, 1996). For ex- able to exploit these contingencies in the same way as normal partici- ample, in Chun and Jiang’s (1998) experiments, participants demon- pants. Many studies have demonstrated a significant impairment in the strated no explicit awareness of the relationship between targets and visual search abilities of neglect patients (Aglioti, Smania, Barbieri, & the distractor context, but nevertheless responded faster to targets Corbetta, 1997; Behrmann, Ebert, & Black, 2002; Eglin, Robertson, & that appeared in the same distractor configuration than to targets in Knight, 1989; Esterman, McGlinchey-Berroth, & Milberg, 2000; Rid- novel configurations. In fact, people appear to be sensitive to repeti- doch & Humphreys, 1987). tions in target location over approximately five to eight intervening The study of neglect patients provides a natural experiment for trials even when there is no probability manipulation (Maljkovic & exploring whether behavioral sensitivity to stimulus probabilities is Nakayama, 1996). These findings are consistent with prior data sug- distinguishable from attentional orienting. If the behavior of patients gesting that probabilistic distributions in target locations are related can be modulated by simple regularities in target location without al- to performance optimization given limited attentional capacity tering the qualitative pattern of their neglect, it would lead to an in- (Shaw & Shaw, 1977). teresting dissociation between biased tonic attentional orientation Indeed, the ability to track statistical probabilities linking behavior and intact probability matching. This would add to current under- to reward appears to be ubiquitous in animal species. The matching standing of the mechanisms involved in the spatial orientation of at- law characterizes the absolute rate of response as a linear function of tention and behavior. the frequency of reinforcement. In one of the earliest examples, Herrn- In summary, we report here the findings from two experiments stein (1961) demonstrated that the frequency with which White Car- in which a visual search task was used to assess behavioral neaux pigeons pecked at each of two response keys was commensurate changes when targets were more likely to appear in locations on with the reinforcement schedule at each key. Although different rein- one half of the display compared with the other half. The results forcement paradigms result in under- or overmatching, the ranking of indicate that the behaviors of both normal and patient populations responses in correspondence with the available reinforcement hierar- reflect sensitivity to the statistical contingencies. Despite the obvi- ous ability to exploit these contingencies, participants reported being unaware of the uneven distribution of target locations. The complementary data from the normal and brain-damaged subjects provide converging constraints on understanding how visual search Address correspondence to Joy J. Geng, Department of Psychology, Car- proceeds and how statistical regularities modulate the spatial ori- negie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: [email protected]. enting network. 520 Copyright © 2002 American Psychological Society VOL. 13, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2002 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Joy J. Geng and Marlene Behrmann GENERAL METHOD All participants were right-handed and had normal or corrected-to- normal vision. All testing was conducted at CMU. Participants completed Design 72 and 225 trials in the baseline and uneven conditions, respectively. The stimuli were gray (16.9 cd/m2) letters on a green (52.8 cd/m2) Results background. The letters L and F were targets, and T and E were dis- tractors. A target was present on every trial. There were 18 possible lo- Error responses constituted an average of 2.5% and 1% of the data cations, formed by a grid of 6 vertical columns by 3 horizontal rows. for the young and elderly subjects, respectively. RTs more than 2 SDs Six letters appeared on each trial, one in each column. The distance from the condition mean of the correct trials were excluded. This re- between letters in adjacent columns was at minimum 5 cm and at sulted in the elimination of 5.1% of trials on average for the young maximum 17 cm. The screen subtended 38.5Њ of visual angle, and participants and 5.2% of trials for the elderly participants. RT analyses each letter subtended 0.7Њ, if located centrally. Participants responded were based on cell means from the remaining trials. To determine by pressing one button for L targets and another for F targets. Stimu- whether counterbalancing screen side across participants affected per- lus presentation and data collection were controlled using PsyScope formance in the uneven condition, for each population we conducted (Cohen, MacWhinney, Flatt, & Provost, 1993). A PsyScope-compati- an initial analysis with the between-participants factor of probability ble button box was used to collect response times (RTs). assignment (left, right) and the within-participants factor of screen- The probability manipulation was implemented across two condi- side contingency (80%, 20%). Probability assignment and screen side tions that appeared sequentially in separate blocks of trials. In the base- did not interact in either population, F(1, 14) ϭ 2.69, p Ͼ .05, for line condition, targets were equally likely to appear in any of the six young participants and F(1, 7) ϭ 0.06, p Ͼ .05, for elderly partici- columns. In the uneven condition, targets appeared on one half of the pants. Henceforth, we refer to the side containing 80% of the targets screen (e.g., columns 1–3) with 80% probability and on the other half as “left” (i.e., columns 1–3) and the side containing 20% of the targets (e.g., columns 4–6) with 20% probability. The target was equally likely as “right” (i.e., columns 4–6) to be consistent with the design of Ex- to appear in all possible locations within the selected screen side. The periment 2, conducted with neglect patients. screen side containing 80% of the targets was counterbalanced across A Population (elderly, young) ϫ Probability Condition (baseline, normal subjects (left, right) and always occurred on the left for neglect uneven) ϫ Column (1–6) repeated measures analysis of variance patients. No mention of the probability manipulation was