See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339739872
Current Theory
Chapter · May 2019
CITATIONS
READS
0
1,081
4 authors:
Tindara Caprì
Rosa Angela Fabio
Link Campus University
Università degli Studi di Messina
97 PUBLICATIONS 1,035 CITATIONS
484 PUBLICATIONS 2,537 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Giulia Emma Towey
Alessandro Antonietti
Università degli Studi di Messina
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
15 PUBLICATIONS 186 CITATIONS
504 PUBLICATIONS 4,699 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Rosa Angela Fabio on 13 May 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Chapter 1
CURRENT THEORY
Tindara Caprì*, Rosa Angela Fabio,
Giulia Emma Towey and Alessandro Antonietti
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine,
University of Messina, Messina, Italy
INTRODUCTION
Attention is a research field that has produced, since its beginnings, a
growing interest involving areas of apparently different investigations,
among which: philosophy; branches of psychology, such as developmental
psychology, social psychology, experimental psychology; areas of
cognitive science, such as artificial intelligence and the simulation of
neural networks; and, in general, neurosciences. In the last 30 years,
several theories have been elaborated to explain the attention processes.
Consequently, today, a rich body of research on the attentive processes is
present in literature. This theoretical and methodological richness is due to
the multifactoriality of attention. It is a complex concept, so when one
*
Corresponding Author’s Email: tcapri@unime.it.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
2
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
studies attention one thinks of referring to a single construct, but in fact,
the process of attention requires different stages of information processing,
connected to them. It is also a process that does not involve a single brain
area, but a network of brain areas closely connected to each other.
Although we may want to refer to a single construct, for example,
selective attention, the paradigms of research are different. This violates
the idea, now consolidated, that attention is a multiple process both from a
theoretical and a methodological point of view. Contemporary cognitive
psychology and cognitive neuroscience have sought to deepen the
mechanisms of attention, taking into account the inseparable link between
attention and other aspects of cognition such as perception, action,
memory, language.
For these reasons, it is very difficult to write a chapter aimed to outline
a historical and recent theory that can fully explain a complex cognitive
process, such as attention.
In the present chapter, the classical definitions of attention and related
functions are outlined. In a second section of this chapter, an overview of
historical theories of attention is provided, and, in addition, automatic and
controlled processes of attention are described. These processes have given
rise to a long debate in attention literature. In the final section, the current
theories of attention are shown.
1. DEFINITIONS OF ATTENTION
The concept of attention has often been interpreted in a very broad
sense, despite what William James, already in 1860, in his most important
work “Principles of Psychology,” stated: “Everyone knows what attention
is …” (James, 1890), this means considering attention as an “anticipated
thought.” The behavioral psychologist Hebb, in 1949, stated that attention
should be understood as “a kind of process that is not completely
controlled by environmental stimulation” (Hebb, 1949). In 1908, Titchener
argued that “the doctrine of attention is the nerve of the whole
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
3
psychological system” (Titchner, 1908), assuming that the study of
attentional processes embraces a fairly broad field of inquiry.
In attentional literature, there has been much discussion about the
definition of attention. Attention has conceptualized as a binding glue
which aids in object perception (Treisman & Gelade, 1980); as a biasing
mechanism which helps in selection of the task-relevant target (Desimone
& Duncan, 1995); as related to the action system (Norman & Shallice,
1986), as a contributing agent in consciousness (De Brigard & Prinz,
2010); in terms of space and time as well as modes of deployment, i.e.,
exogenous and endogenous (Theeuwes, 1991).
Alan Baddeley (1992), argued that “any attempt to review the literature
on attention immediately leads those who undertake it to the conclusion
that the concept of attention is not at all unitary” (Baddeley, 1992).
Umiltà (2001), an Italian psychologist, said that human cognitive
activity can be described as information processing and there are numerous
processes and internal mechanisms that allow this elaboration, among these
all those processes that go under the term of attention. In fact, man needs
“the aid of the attentive mechanisms” since the elaboration process has
several limits of time and space, as it is almost impossible to perform
multiple activities simultaneously, to elaborate two stimuli or to recover
information other than memory. We are aware of the spatial-temporal
limits of the human processing system, during our daily life, using quite
simple and common examples, as it is almost impossible to carry out an
activity like typing and at the same time be able to hold a conversation, or
follow a program on television and simultaneously talk to another person,
or dance a tango and at the same time whistle a waltz. “We can therefore
consider attention as a function that regulates the activity of mental
processes, filtering and organizing information coming from the
environment, in order to issue an adequate response” (Umiltà, 2001).
Providing a definition in order to explain the construct of attention
exactly, beyond the known equation “attention = selection,” is considered a
very complex action. Even specialists have always been particularly
reluctant to provide a clear and precise definition of this concept.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
4
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
The term attention derives from the Latin term “attendi”, from
“attentus,” past participle of the verb to wait and it means literally “pay
attention”, an expression that is also commonly used in our everyday
language to describe certain experiences or situations. Therefore, this term
means “the attempt to devote skills of concentration, memory, or
generically mental effort, to the elaboration of an event (object or person)
relevant at a certain moment” (Turatto, 2008).
In the classical account of attention, the common view is that attention
is selective and has a limited capacity. Another feature of attention is that it
can be strategically allocated.
Attention, therefore, can be considered both as a psychic function that
allows to select stimuli or tasks, either as a component of consciousness,
given that to be conscious and aware of a specific element we must pay
attention to the space in which it is inserted. This can happen when our
attention is so focused on a certain thought that we do not hear the events
happening around us. However, it may seem that this cognitive function is
only inherent in sensation and perception in the light of the strong link of
interaction, but it is possible to pay attention to things other than sensory
inputs, that is, attention can be directed to internal mental processes, such
as rethinking certain memories or mentally adding numbers.
In conclusion, the definition considered still today the most eloquent
is, as previously stated, that proposed by William James. In The Principles
of Psychology, James discussed attention in terms of several dimensions, as
following:
“Everyone knows what attention is (…) It is the taking possession by
the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several
simultaneously possible objects or trains [p. 404] of thought.
Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies
withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others and
is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatter
brained state which in French is called distraction, and Zerstreutheit in
German.”
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
5
1.1. The Functions of Attention
Figure 1. Functions of attention.
From a cognitive prospective, attention has been considered as a
multifactorial process, as it is made up of many functions. In classical
view, the main functions of attention are:
1. Focused attention: respond to specific stimuli (focus on a precise
task);
2. Sustained attention: maintain a consistent response during longer
continuous activity (stay attentive a long period of time and follow
the same topic);
3. Selective attention: selectively maintain the cognitive resource on
specific stimuli (focus only on a given object while ignoring
distractors);
4. Alternating attention: switch between multiple tasks (stop reading
to watch something);
5. Divided attention: deal simultaneously with multiple tasks (talking
while driving) (Matei, Ferrera, Riche & Taylor, 2016).
According to some authors, two sub-categories are closely related to
them (to what?):
•
•
attention shifting: consists in the alternation between two focuses.
It is connected to divided attention.
generalized attention or arousal: predisposes the body to receive
input from the environment, implying behavioral and physiological
Complimentary Contributor Copy
6
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
changes in response to new stimuli. It is strongly interconnected to
sustained attention.
1.1.1. Divided Attention and Attention Shifting
Helmholtz provided the first demonstration that attention can be
shifted covertly and consequently, independently of the direction of eyegaze. When control is purely endogenous, (Klein, 1980; Klein &
Pontefract, 1994) and others (Hunt & Kingstone, 2003) have demonstrated
that such shifts of attention are not accomplished via sub-threshold
programming of the oculomotor system.
The term divided attention refers to the ability to keep two or more
focus, or tasks, simultaneously, as in the case of listening to a message,
writing and answering questions; it happens in the daily life of carrying out
an activity, for example cooking and at the same time one realizes that one
is humming a song, this is a typical case in which divided attention
becomes active.
Umiltà (2001) argued that “the divided attention is the mirror image of
selective attention, because in the latter the subject is asked to filter and
attenuate as much information as possible from the non-relevant source,
while in the former the task requires to process information coming from
multiple sources at the same time.” The so-called “attentive resources” are
activated, according to which there is a common and limited source of
processing capacity that a normal subject can either intentionally distribute
among various tasks, or concentrate on one, “the ability - therefore - to
perform more tasks at the same time, without exceeding the limit of the
capacity of the processing system, depends on the difficulty of the task and
the habit of carrying it out. Moreover, we are talking about a primary task,
when for example the task is carried out in an optimal way, and of a
secondary task, when, instead, a task receives a remaining portion of
attention.
An essential component in defining divided attention is attentive
shifting, which consists of the ability to shift attention alternately between
two focuses, which need not be paid attention to at the same time, i.e., the
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
7
subject must be able to move from one task to another when the situation
requires it.
The speed and mode of movement of attentional focus change
according to age. Focus in newborns is conditioned by the novelty of the
stimulus, however, afterwards, it is the subject himself who decides which
direction to assume in relation to their experiences or to the desire to
achieve certain goals.
A typical example of attentive shifting can happen when we are
driving a car; while we are behind the wheel we slow down near a red
light, and knowing that the traffic lights are always placed on our right we
focus attention on the color that tells us to stop, suddenly stopping because
a pedestrian crosses the road, not on the pedestrian crossing, from the left.
To avoid running them over, our attention focus moves immediately to the
side in which the person comes up to us, “forgetting” almost completely
about the traffic light.
A shift of the attentional focus includes some steps: detachment of the
attentional focus from the first selected information; displacement of the
focus towards the new information; anchoring of the attentive focus to the
second information (Marzocchi, Molin, & Poli, 2000).
The tasks of shifting attention, that is the passage from one target to
another, together with the planning and initiation of strategies concerning
the execution of “double tasks,” that is, multiple information that must be
processed at the same time, together with the inhibition of inappropriate
responses, which allow to deal with any interference, are the main
components of attention that imply executive functions.
Executive functions mean those “cognitive processes that are involved
in a targeted way in the organization, selection and temporal structuring of
our cognitive abilities, to achieve a particular purpose.”
Executive functions are manifested through numerous, dissimilar
phenomena, for this reason many situations require the aid of an executive
control, for example those that require the correction of errors, the
production of little learned or new action sequences, the overcoming of
habitual responses, the formation of an intention.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
8
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Studies (Noudoost & Moore, 2011; Stevens, & Bavelier, 2012) have
also highlighted that the inhibitory component of selective attention can be
considered an executive function. It has been found that most control
processes are based on selective inhibition systems that inhibit any
execution by potentially interfering events, for example, the phenomenon
of negative priming, introduced by Tipper in 1985 that is “definable as the
effect of interference that irrelevant information, in a test, causes when it is
identical or semantically associated with the relevant information in the
next trial” (Tipper, 1985).
The negative priming effect is not found only when the irrelevant
information in a test is identical to the relevant information in the next test,
but also when the two pieces of information are semantically associated.
It is also believed that the different phenomena are due to a central
system whose neural substrate mainly involves the frontal lobes; this
apparatus over the course of time has assumed different denominations in
the scientific field: central executive, operating system, supervisory
system, supervisor, central processor or even anterior attentive system.
Despite the various appellations, the studies carried out on this system
agree that there is a clear distinction between a system that controls and a
multiplicity of processes that can be controlled, since, at the beginning,
they can act autonomously, but they are always activated by external
stimuli or by control processes; on the contrary, the processes of voluntary
control do not depend on external stimulation.
1.1.2. Sustained Attention And “Arousal”
Sustained attention has been defined as the ability to maintain attention
on a specific task over an extended period of time (Betts, McKay, Maruff,
& Anderson, 2007; Coull, 1998). Hence, this type of attention refers to the
fact that attentional performance varies as a function of the temporal
characteristics of the task (Cohen, 2014).
Beginning with the experiments carried out by Mackworth around
1950, the assessment of sustained attention performance, also known as the
supervisory term, required situations in which an observer is urged to
watch inconspicuous signals for prolonged periods of time. The state of
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
9
readiness to respond to the rare and unpredictable signals that occur is
characterized by an overall ability to detect signals, defined, “level of
supervision” and, above all, by a decrease in terms of performance over
time, defined, instead, “supervisory decrease”(Parasuraman, 2000).
The supervisory level describes the general performance, i.e., false
alarms or the proportion of successes, while a decrease in supervision is
triggered by an increase in errors and reaction times that slow down over
time.
Psychological research on vigilance, or sustained attention, has
interested well-known scholars in recent decades, allowing them to detect
the development and validity of the various tasks administered, through
sustained attention tests carried out on both humans and animals in order
also to further research neuronal circuits that study the performance of
sustained attention in humans and in laboratory animals (Martino et al,
2018; Fabio, Caprì, Lotan, Towey, & Martino, 2018; Fabio et al, 2018;
Gangemi et al, 2018; Sarter, Givens, & Bruno, 2001).
It is therefore important to take into account the state of supervision,
which together with the attention paid, oversees both how attentive
performances vary over time and how a state of alert can be reached and
above all supported through the various skills. Surveillance corresponds therefore - to the ability to monitor events with a low frequency of
occurrence over time.
Umiltà (2001) claimed that the typical situation - to record the
activation of sustained attention - is that of an observer placed in front of a
screen in which weak light stimuli constitute the background noise, while a
more intense stimulus constitutes the signal to be detected. By means of an
explicit, verbal or motor response the subject is asked to be able to signal
when a target stimulus appears in front of him, despite activating a
background noise that acts as a distractor. A marked deterioration in the
observer’s performance was observed over time, as the subject was
distracted by the detection of a non-existent signal.
During a test to detect a state of vigilance, it is necessary to monitor a
series of stimuli to identify a critical element. The experimental subjects
are observed for a fairly long period of time and the stimulus they have to
Complimentary Contributor Copy
10
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
identify appear a few times and according to predictable modalities. The
possibility that the target stimulus appears ranges between 3% and 5%. In
the initial phase of the test it was recorded that the experimental subjects
maintain a fairly fast performance and a good level of accuracy, while as
the hours pass, there is a progressive decline in performance, as reaction
times, false alarms and omissions increase; all this is due to a gradual
decline in the detection of signals and an increase in the number of errors.
Moreover, the performance turns out to be worse when the critical
signals are not very salient, that is when their duration is just above the
perceptive threshold, when the target stimuli are very rare and when they
require a complex elaboration.
In support of this, some studies have shown that sustained attention is,
therefore, constituted by three stages (De Gangi & Porges, 1990):
•
•
•
the activation of attention: it is as a reflex of orientation or “initial
alert orientation to a stimulus,” and an individual reaction to
sensory stimulation.
the maintenance of attention: it happens when activation is due to a
stimulus that is new or complex for the subject so much so as to
motivate the individual to elaborate it.
the fall of attention: it represents the detachment of attention from
a stimulus; it can occur due to physical and mental fatigue or
because attention is paid to new or different stimuli.
Plays a role in supporting attention: the arousal.
Arousal, or generalized attention, “predisposes the human organism to
receive inputs. It can be described as an orientation reaction that involves
behavioral and physiological changes in response to new stimuli” (Fabio,
2009).
Umiltà (2001) identifies arousal as a level of activation meaning it as
“physiological alertness to respond to internal and external stimuli,”
therefore, it can be understood as a degree of generalized activation proper
to each individual and is connected to potential intensity of attention.
Consequently, when activated, it generates a general alert reaction of both
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
11
receptors and effectors so that the body is prepared to concentrate on a set
of information that comes from the environment and that are considered
suitable. Once the information is acquired, what is considered relevant
undergoes reinforcement, while the remaining information, even if it is
considered irrelevant in that precise context, is either marginally accepted
or completely rejected.
Between arousal and attention there is a close relationship that finds
explanation in the Law of Yerkes and Dodson, dating back to 1908,
according to which performances, in a specific task, undergo an optimal
course assuming the form of an inverted U function. Low levels of
performance correspond to levels of low activation, since both the
selectivity and the irrelevant indices are accepted in an elementary way,
but then, while the activation gradually increases and both the selectivity
and the capacity to process the stimuli increases, it is noted that the
performance improves until, once the optimal growth ratio between arousal
and performance has been reached, it stops at the highest point of the
curve, from which the performance progressively deteriorates (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Law of Yerkes and Dodson (1908).
Complimentary Contributor Copy
12
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the level of organism
activation and vigilance are independent, even if it is still true that,
generally, a good level of activation is accompanied by good supervision
and vice versa (Mazer, 2011; Parasuraman, 2000; Theeuwes, Kramer, &
Irwin, 2011). The level of vigilance is sensitive to the level of arousal at
the beginning of the task, while, supervisory performance is usually poor
during the task to be performed if the level of arousal is low: physiological
arousal tends to decrease in each monotonous environment or in conditions
of prolonged performance, although this decrease is not always associated
with a decline in performance. All this may depend on the ability to detect
the signal or the response criterion of the observer. During the tests of
detection on the degree of relevance, the experimental subject must be able
to tell if a certain target is present or absent, and his answer will depend on
both the perceptual factors and decision-making criteria he uses. In any
case, the subject is able to modify the response criteria based on the goals,
expectations or consequences that may be associated with correct and/or
incorrect answers.
Sustained attention influences the decrease in the supervisory status as
both changes in signal sensitivity and in the response criterion are detected,
i.e., during the test the subjects hypothesize the criterion of response based
on the probability of the signal appearing, which will fade if the subject
does not detect signals within a certain period of time. Therefore, the
lowering of vigilance becomes a consequence of changes in the response
parameter of the subject, that is, the longer the time between the
appearance of the target-stimulus and the other increases, the more the
subject will tend to adopt a more stringent and conservative criterion.
Some research, conducted by Colquhoun and Baddeley, around 1967,
focused on vigilance by modifying the sequence of stimuli and critical
events that occurred, noting that the correctness of the response remains
stable over time when the appearance of stimuli and critical events are
high. On the contrary, the lowering of the task reaches its maximum when
the rhythm of stimulus presentation is sustained and critical events are
infrequent. These studies have shown that expectation factors and
anticipatory factors play a first order role in establishing the order of
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
13
response, and that the decrease in supervision is certainly determined both
by a decrease in sensitivity, strongly influenced by arousal, and from
changes in the answer criterion.
1.1.3. Selective Attention and Focused Attention
Attention literature focused, for a long time, on selective attention.
This type of attention was considered as the most important function of
attention. Selective attention can be defined as ‘The mental ability to select
stimuli, responses, memory or thought that are behaviourally relevant
among the many others that are behaviourally irrelevant’ (Corbetta, 1998).
Selective attention concerns the use of one source of information rather
than another. Therefore, it is linked to selection.
Selection is the process by which some informational elements are
given priority over others (Cohen, 2014). Selection is necessary because
there are severe limits to our capacity to process visual information. These
limits are likely imposed by the fixed amount of overall energy available to
the brain and by the high energy cost of neuronal activity involved in
cortical computation. Furthermore, our attention system, based on needs, is
able to select information through different sensorial modalities, as it
allows us to decide which visual stimulus is to be classified and ignored,
for example, the auditory stimulus, or vice versa.
The factors that determine good selective attention “depend on the
effectiveness of the cognitive system and on the characteristics of external
stimuli” (Marzocchi, Molin, & Poli, 2000), as efficient mnemonic
mechanisms facilitate the selection of all the information from part of the
attention. Moreover, a good surveillance system allows to filter the stimuli
adequately and, at the same time, the inputs coming from the outside world
are able to better access the attentive process if they are new and
interesting.
Baddeley argued that “the function of selective attention is to protect
the human cognitive system, as a limited capacity system, from
information overload” (Baddeley, 1992). However, more recent cognitive
research has failed to empirically validate the existence of this limit, since
it has shown that our cognitive system is able to preserve independent
Complimentary Contributor Copy
14
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
representations of very complex and continuously evolving messages
without causing any interference and, therefore, in light of this it is
assumed that our capacity is not limited (Allport, 1989).
In order to perform actions it is necessary, thus, that they are selected.
Although our senses are able to record and process several inputs
simultaneously coming from different directions, our ability to perform
allows us to perform one task at a time, so it is important to trigger an
action control mechanism that aims to select the most useful piece of
information by separating it from the rest. When we enter a room, for
example, the representation we make of it depends on the purpose we have
in mind, that is, if we intend to modify the furnishings, the type of
information we need will be based on the knowledge of the dimensions, of
the materials used for the renovation or the type of furniture we will need,
the element that we will ignore is certainly people who are present at that
moment. The situation changes radically instead if the room is a classroom
in which we have to follow a lesson, the relevant information will be: the
number of people present, the available vacancies, completely ignoring the
color of the walls or if the floor is covered in ceramic or parquet. These are
banal examples that allow us to better explain how it is necessary, in order
to carry out an action, for the information to undergo a selection.
Another function of attention, closely related to selective attention, is
“focused attention.” It is defined as “the set of information selected in a
given situation taking into account the spatio-temporal limits of that
moment” (Mazzocchi, Molin, & Poli, 2000). Since the two dimensions
always act in a synergistic and coordinated way, it is inseparable from
selective attention.
Attention is focused when it is specifically directed to a single target or
task, without being involved in the simultaneous processing of multiple
sets of information. At the same time, it is important to take into account
two assumptions, when we talk about this subcategory:
1) the selectivity of the attention induces a narrowing of the field of
analysis to a few elements;
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
15
2) the degree of commitment exercised in the analysis of these stimuli
is increased.
When we had to solve a mathematical problem at school, our goal was
to solve it, so we concentrated on a single solution, or when playing chess
or checkers we are intent on both looking at the board and predicting the
opponent’s moves: these are typical examples in order to better understand
what is focused and what is needed.
1.1.4. Automatic and Controlled Processing
In the last 25 years, a large body of experimental studies has
investigated the control of attentive deployment, demonstrating that a
subject’s attention for an input scene arises from both stimuli driven
factors referred to as bottom-up attention, and task-driven factors referred
to as top-down attention (Cheal & Lyon, 1991; Fabio, 2017; Fabio &
Antonietti; 2012; Fabio & Caprì, 2015; 2017; Fabio, Castriciano, &
Rondanini; 2015; Fabio & Urso, 2014; Fabio, Caprì, Mohammadhasani,
Gangemi, Gagliano, & Martino, 2018; Hawkins, Hillyard, Luck, Mouloua,
Downing, & Woodward, 1990; Hickey, McDonald, & Theeuwes, 2006;
Hikosaka, Miyauch, & Shimojo, 1993; Martino, Caprì, Castriciano, &
Fabio, 2017; Mohammadhasani, Fabio, Fardanesh, & Hatami, 2015;
Mohammadhasani, Fardanesh, Hatami, Mozayani, & Fabio, 2018;
Nakayama & Mackeben, 1989; Pestilli & Carrasco, 2005; Posner, 1980;
Posner & Cohen,1984; Yantis, 1996; Yantis & Johnson, 1990; Yeshurun &
Carrasco, 1998).
Overall, bottom-up attention is based on salient features of the input
image such as orientation, colour, intensity and motion. It is operated in the
pre-attention stage and is the outcome of simple feature extraction. Topdown attention refers to the set of processes used to bias visual perception
based on task or intention. It is driven by the mental state of the observer or
cues they have received.
From 1970, an extended effort to develop an empirical and theoretical
understanding of automatic and controlled processing has been made. The
first distinction between automatic and controlled processing was
Complimentary Contributor Copy
16
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
introduced by Schneider and Shiffrin (1977). The authors proposed that
there are two distinctive cognitive processes, namely, controlled processes
and automatic processes. Automatic processing is fast, effortless,
autonomous, stereotypic, unavailable to conscious awareness and fairly
error-free. It can be accomplished simultaneously with other cognitive
processes without interference, it is not limited by attentional capacity and
it can be unconscious or involuntary (Moors & De Houwer, 2006; Fabio,
2009). Moreover, automatic processes are learned, sequential activation of
nodes in which (1) the same sequence is always activated by a particular
input and (2) the sequence is activated and run with little or no attention
required. Once learned, an automatic sequence is difficult to suppress, or
ignore. Automatic processes, because they make minimal demands on the
attention of the short-term storage capacity, can run in parallel
(Cohen, 2014).
Controlled processing is effortful, slow, and prone to errors, but at the
same time, flexible, useful to deal with novel situations and limited by the
capacity of the short-term storage (Moors & De Houwer, 2006; Fabio,
2009). Because of this capacity limitation, controlled processes must be
executed serially. Moreover, control processes (decisions, rehearsal,
coding, searching of storage) manipulate the input and output of
information from short-term storage (Cohen, 2014).
Currently, two opposed theoretical frameworks predominate in the
debate on the control of attentive deployment: stimulus-driven theories
(Theeuwes, 2004, 2010; Yants, 2000;) and goal-driven theories (Folk,
Remington, & Johnston, 1992). According to stimulus-driven theories,
salient stimuli automatically capture visuospatial attention, regardless of a
viewer’s goals (Gaspelin, Leonard, & Luck, 2017). Theeuwes and
colleagues (1994, 2004, 2010; Hickey, MacDonald, & Theeuwes, 2006;
Theeuwes, Kramer, & Kingstone, 2004; Theeuwes & Chen, 2005;
Theeuwes & van der Burg, 2008) argued that attentional capture is
basically bottom-up and not subject to top-down control. Processing in
early vision is driven exclusively by bottom-up factors such as salience,
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
17
and only later do top-down factors play a role in processing. In addition,
stimulus-driven theories explain cases where salient stimuli produce no
observable attentional capture effects, throughout the rapid disengagement
hypothesis (Theeuwes, De Vries, & Godiijn, 2003; Theeuwes, 2010).
According to this interpretation, attention initially is oriented to the most
salient stimulus in the display, but the salient stimulus can then be rapidly
rejected so that the target is attended with little delay (Gaspelin,
Leonard, & Luck, 2017).
In contrast to stimulus-driven framework, goal-driven theories propose
that goals and experiences of individuals determine whether the salient
stimulus can capture the attention (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992). In
other words, visual attention is involuntarily guided to objects that have
features matching what the observer is looking for (called an attentional
set) (Gaspelin, Leonard, & Luck, 2017).
Folk, Remington and Johnston (1992) also argued that attentional
capture requires task relevancy, and therefore top-down attentional control
tends to overwhelm bottom-up automatic attentional capture. According to
their prospective, the so-called “contingent capture account,” attentional
capture is completely subject to top-down control. Precisely, the ability of
a stimulus to capture attention is contingent on whether an attentionalcapturing stimulus is consistent with the top-down settings, which are
established “off-line” on the basis of current attentional goals. Only stimuli
that match the top-down control settings will capture attention; stimuli that
do not match the top-down settings will be ignored (Fabio, Piran, &
Antonietti, 2005; Folk, Remington & Johnston, 1992).
In summary, deployment of attention has been viewed as goal directed
or stimulus driven (Corbetta, & Shulman, 2002). This distinction refers to
top-down guidance of attention specific to cognitive goals of the agent, or
bottom-up capture of attention by external stimuli. However, this
dichotomous distinction of attentional control has been revised suggesting
that top-down and bottom-up attentional capture operates simultaneously
(Fabio, Caprì & Romano, in press).
Complimentary Contributor Copy
18
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
1.2. Historical Theories of Attention
Figure 3. Historical theories of attention.
The development of selective attention studies has had three phases:
biological studies, computational models and then applications.
Consequently, there are many theories of selective attention, and the most
important are: the Attenuation Theory propounded by Anne Treisman,
Deutsch and Deutsch Model, Donald Broadbent’s Filter Theory,
Kahneman’s Capacity Model, Cherry’s Cocktail Party Theory, Multimode
Theory proposed by Johnston and Heinz, and Posner’s paradigm. In this
paragraph, we describe the first mentioned theory.
1.2.1. Anne Treisman’s Attenuation Theory
Anne Treisman (1964) proposed the Attenuation Theory to explain
how unattended stimuli sometimes came to be processed in a more
rigorous manner than what Broadbent’s Filter model could account for.
Treisman agreed with Broadbent that there was a bottleneck but disagreed
on the location. Attenuation Theory added layers of sophistication to
Broadbent’s original idea of how selective attention might operate;
claiming that instead of a filter which barred unattended inputs from ever
entering awareness, it was a process of attenuation (Nketesia, 2013).
Treisman (1964) argued that secondary channels of information are not
completely filtered but attenuated. Attenuated information would be passed
to higher levels of analysis only if it passed a threshold test. This test
would identify words that had learned importance (e.g., one’s name or a
warning such as “Look out!”) or that were favoured by contextual
probabilities or recent use (Cohen, 2014). Treisman, in her Attenuation
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
19
Theory, assumed that there was a decrease in the perceived loudness of an
unattended message. This message will usually not be loud enough to
reach its threshold unless it has a very low threshold to begin with (your
name), or there is a general momentary decrease for all messages. Thus the
attenuation of unattended stimulus would make it difficult, but not
impossible, to exact meaningful context from irrelevant inputs, so long as
stimuli possessed sufficient “strength” after attenuation to make it through
a hierarchical analyzation process (Beneli, 1997).
Treisman’s model overcomes some of the problems associated with
Broadbent’s Filter model (1958), such as semantic analysis, and explains
the “Cocktail party phenomenon.”
However, this model does not explain the meaning of the “attenuation
concept” and how semantic analysis works. In addition, the nature of the
attenuation process has never been precisely specified.
1.2.2. Deutsch and Deutsch Model
Deutsch and Deutsch (1963) proposed the “Late Selection Theory” and
postulated that all information, both attended and unattended, are analysed
for “importance.” All signals receive extensive analysis and the most
important signal is selected for further processing at a later stage. This
further processing is what enters awareness. Further processing of a given
message may not occur at all, however, if a person’s level of arousal is
low, particularly when the message is not of great importance (Cohen,
2014).
In the Late Selection Theory, another factor that has a major effect on
selecting the input is the relevance of the information during the time of
processing. Deutsch and Deutsch (1963) claimed that all messages are
routinely processed for at least some aspects of meaning – the selection of
message for response happens later. At low level of alertness, only very
important messages capture attention, whereas at higher level of alertness,
less important messages can be processed. Moreover, the authors
suggested that both channels of information are recognized but are quickly
forgotten unless they hold personal pertinence to the individual. For
example, in shadowing experiments, the participant is asked to repeat a
Complimentary Contributor Copy
20
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
certain message, that would create the personal significance needed in
attention.
However, Deutsch and Deutsch’s model has some limits. Firstly, the
system that assigns “importance” to some information is not well
described. Secondly, the model is vague regarding the stages of allocation.
It does not explain how the analysis is automatically allocated to all
stimuli, where the late stage is located in the stream of information
processing (Cohen, 2014).
Comparing Treisman’s model and Deutsch and Deutsch Model, the
Late Selection approach appears wasteful with its thorough processing of
all information before selection of admittance into working memory.
1.2.3. Donald Broadbent’s Filter Theory
The British psychologist Donald E. Broadbent (1958) created the Filter
Theory, based on findings from the shadowing and dichotic listening tasks,
introduced by Cherry (1953). In a dichotic listening experiment an
individual wears a set of earphones through which two different messages
are played simultaneously. The listener is usually asked to monitor one of
the two messages, repeating it word for word as it is presented. This
spoken repetition is called shadowing the message. If one message is
presented to one ear, and a second message to the other ear, then it is easy
for the listener to shadow the first message and ignore the other. If the
delivery rate of the messages is doubled, it is still possible to shadow
effectively.
Broadbent started his research with air traffic controllers during the
war. In this situation, a number of competing messages from departing and
incoming aircrafts arrive continuously, all requiring attention. According to
Broadbent (1958) information from the stimuli present at any time enters a
sensory buffer. One of the inputs is then selected on the basis of its
physical characteristics for further processing by being allowed to pass
through a filter. Since we have only a limited capacity to process
information, this filter is designed to prevent the information processing
system from being overloaded. The inputs not initially selected by the filter
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
21
remain briefly in the sensory buffer, and if they are not processed they
decay rapidly.
Therefore, Broadbent’s theory assumed that “the stimuli come through
the various channels to the sensory system where they are stored for a short
time and analysed in parallel, based on their elemental physical
characteristics, tone or intensity of voice (S). This stage is followed by a
more advanced processing phase performed by the perceptive system (P),
which operates serially and is characterized by limited capacity, which
only has access to some of the stimuli. A filter between the S system and
the P system selects the stimuli that have access to a more sophisticated
processing level” (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Broadbent’s Model.
As shown in Figure 4, Broadbent described two processes: filtering
and pigeonholing. Filtering is involved in the selection of a stimulus for
attention or further processing because it possesses a particular feature,
usually a simple physical characteristic. Pigeonholing is the process that
sorts stimuli that differ by multiple sensory attributes into response
categories. If no category is appropriate, a stimulus is usually ignored.
Because pigeonholing requires the detailed analysis of a stimulus on a
number of dimensions, it occurs later in time. Therefore, in this model,
short-term storage precedes the filter system and allows the system to store
Complimentary Contributor Copy
22
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
input from secondary channels for later analysis. Consequently,
multichannel monitoring of complex information can be carried out.
In summary, the key assumptions in the Filter Theory are as follows:
•
•
•
Two stimuli or messages presented at the same time gain access in
parallel (at the same time) to a sensory buffer. This holds
information for a short period before it is attended to or disappears
from the processing system;
One of the inputs is then allowed through a filter on the basis of its
physical characteristics, with the other input only briefly in the
buffer for later processing;
This filter prevents overloading of the limited-capacity mechanism
beyond the filter; this mechanism processes the input thoroughly.
However, Broadbent’s theory was criticized because as in his
experiments participants report after the entire message has been played it
is possible that the unattended message is analysed thoroughly but
participants forget.
In light of these findings, Moray (1959) introduced the following
concept “the intrusion of ignored stimuli.” He argued that the ignored
information is implicitly elaborated, for example, we cancatch our name
even if we are not careful in listening because we are able to discriminate
and orient our attention to this information.
1.2.4. Kahneman’s Capacity Model
Kahnemann (1973) first postulated the nature of attentional capacity
and proposed the Capacity Model of attention. The author maintained that
attentional capacity depends on a variety of factors that limit performance
possible for particular behavioural and cognitive functions.
As described by Kahnemann (1973), attentional capacity is constrained
by both structural and energetic limitations. Precisely, attention capacity is
limited by some characteristics inherent to the person and they are specific
for each individual (energetic capacity limitations), i.e., arousal, effort
generation, motivation and momentary disposition of the person. Structural
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
23
capacity limitations refer to inherent properties of the person’s nervous
system and physiology, i.e., memory/encoding, cognitive resources and
processing speed. However, extrinsic factors in the environment are also
important capacity limitations of attention, e.g., whether or not adequate
reward or stimulation is provided in a situation.
Kahnemann’s Capacity Theory was based on the idea of mental effort.
Kahneman argued that some activities are more demanding and therefore
require more mental effort than others, the total amount of available
processing capacity may be increased or decreased by other factors such as
arousal, and that several activities can be carried out at the same time
provided that their total mental effort does not exceed the available
capacity, and finally that rules or strategies exist which determine
allocation of resources to various activities and to various stages of
processing. Attention capacity will therefore reflect the demands made at
the perceptual level, the level at which the input is interpreted or
committed to memory and the response selection stage.
However, Kahneman’s Capacity Model of attention had two limits:
1. Psychological measures do not allow to distinguish between
different levels of processing: there is failure to determine whether
the effect being measured is, for example, the compilation of
relevant or non-relevant information for the task if the task is it
difficult or not. These distinctions must be initiated in the light of
structures and processes;
2. The close interweaving between effort and activation makes it
impossible to distinguish between the two concepts.
Today, the relationship between attention and underlying capacity
limitations is well established. This link is decidedly evident in natural
settings and relatively easy to demonstrate experimentally by manipulating
specific organismic and environmental factors during task performance.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
24
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
1.2.5. Cherry’s Cocktail Party Theory
Colin Cherry (1953) was the first to study the “cocktail party effect”
which is the human ability to follow a single conversation in the midst of
other conversations and background noises. We can imagine a chaotic
context, such as a party. People move on one side to the environment,
groups talk about each other, they hear the voices of individuals. At the
same time, during a party people hear a lot of background noise, such as
taffy, clinking of glasses, doors or windows being slammed, music;
therefore, they are in a situation full of stimuli. However, while each
person has the perception of being a in chaotic environment, nevertheless
the individual can perfectly understand the topic of a conversation, even if
someone talks about a different topic with a higher voice. This human
ability allows us to follow a single conversation while many other
conversations are proceeding at the same time.
Cherry (1953) carried out some studies to investigate the “Cocktail
party phenomenon.” He employed a shadowing task, in which one auditory
message had to be shadowed (repeated back out aloud) while a second
auditory message was presented to the other ear. Little information seemed
to be obtained from the second or non-attended message. Listeners rarely
noticed even when that message was spoken in a foreign language or in
reversed speech. In contrast, physical changes (e.g., the insertion of a pure
tone) were usually detected, and listeners noticed the sex of the speaker
and the intensity of the sound of unattended messages (Figure 5).
Cherry’s experiments are quite important because it was determined
that subjects are able to distinguish two messages that come from the same
spatial source as long as they are different in meaning.
Gutschalk, Micheyl and Oxenham (2008) noted that the cocktail party
phenomenon originated in the secondary auditory cortex in the temporal
lobe. He used magnetoencephalography and monitored the area that was
activated when a subject identified a noise among many indistinct sounds.
These findings confirmed the existence of the Cocktail Party Phenomenon.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
25
Figure 5. Example of Dicotic listening: the actor repeats the sequence perfectly
reported by the attentive ear, the other ear suffers the shadowing.
1.2.6. Multimode Theory
Johnston and Heinz (1978) proposed a broader model in the form of
the ‘Multimode Theory,’ which viewed attention as a flexible system that
allows selection of a message over others at several different points. Later
selection requires more processing, capacity, and effort. In their model,
Johnston and Heinz (1978) described the selective attention processing in
three stages; Stage 1 is the initial stage where sensory representations of
stimuli are recognized which corresponds to Broadbent’s filter theory.
Stage 2 is the stage where semantic representations (meanings) are
constructed and this corresponds to the Deutsch and Deutsch model of
attention. The final stage is the stage where both sensory and semantic
representations enter consciousness. Therefore, the Multimode theory
combines both physical and semantic inputs in one theory. As mentioned
above, within this model, attention is assumed to be flexible following
different depths of perceptual analysis. The feature that gathers awareness
is dependent upon the person’s needs at the time. Switching from physical
and semantic features as a basis for selection yields costs and benefits.
Stimulus information will be attended to via an early selection through
sensory analysis, then, as it increases in complexity, semantic analysis is
involved, compensating for attention limited capacity.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
26
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
1.2.7. Posner’s Paradigm
Posner (1980) first demonstrated that attention can be summoned to a
location using a peripheral cue. Posner, with his studies, wanted to
demonstrate in a certain way that attention could move in space. He argued
that if “it is actually possible to move attention, then it must also be
possible to measure the effects of this shift in the performance of the
subject.” He started by observing the results obtained by Cherry, dichotic
listening, and by Treisman, sensorial processing at a selective level, from
which it emerged how attention gave greater importance to the selected
information than that which was acquired by the “non-attentive” channel,
in the sense that, if an experimental subject was asked to signal a stimulus,
through for example a cursor, it was noticed that he was more reactive only
if this stimulus was present in the range of action in which his attention is
focused.
Posner used a simple detection paradigm in his experimental studies.
In this paradigm, a subject has to detect a target appearing in one of the
two place holders that are equidistant from a central fixation cross (Figure
4). The subject, seated in front of a computer, will be told that his task will
be to indicate in a short time in which part of the screen a target stimulus
will appear; on the computer monitor the target will appear in two
positions delimited by two squares aligned to the left and right of a central
fixation point, on which the subject’s gaze must be kept fixed. These two
quadrants represent the possible positions in which the target stimulus will
appear, and as soon as it is displayed, the subject must report it by pressing
a button as fast as possible, since the response speed is recorded from the
computer. Before it appears on the screen, a signal stimulus called cue (or
suggestion) will be presented, which will suggest in which part of the
screen the target will appear to the subject, for example, the arrow pointing
towards the left or right hemisphere, so it is as if the subject were
encouraged to direct his attention to this position. Finally, there will be
three possible experimental situations: the “valid tests” or “congruent,” in
which the cue will be perfectly in the position in which the target will
appear; the “invalid tests” or “incongruent,” in which the cue will be in a
different position from the point in which the target will appear; the
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
27
“neutral tests,” in which there is no cue and the attention will be given to
all the possible positions in which the target can appear on the screen. The
Posner paradigm also provides two possible suggestions: the exogenous
cue, which allows the attention to be directed automatically and
independently of the will of the subject, and the endogenous cue, which
merely provides a suggestion that the subject freely decides to follow or
not.
The Posner paradigm, therefore, which represents a compromise
solution between the hypothesis of a unique attentional system or
characterized by separate selection operations, has managed to discover,
through targeted studies, how spatial attentive orientation works.
Figure 6. Posner’s Paradigm.
In the last century, therefore, attention played a privileged and
exclusive role within the international scientific community. Until now, the
investigation of the phenomenon of attention has highlighted, with
countless studies based on the experimental tradition, observations based
on the neural basis of the attentive processes, the attention deficit of
neuropsychological patients and the development of attention from
childhood to old age.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
28
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Given the vivacity of this research in the future, surely the
understanding of attention will grow thanks to the knowledge deriving
from neuroanatomical studies and studies based on the simulations of
attentive computer processes.
1.3. Current Theories of Attention
Figure 7. Current theories of attention.
The theory of attention continues to evolve. This evolution is due two
methodological approaches: neuroimaging techniques for measuring brain
structure and function, and computational neurosciences for studying the
neural networks of attention. The main aim of cognitive neuroscience is
getting further into the theoretical and biological nature of attention using
simple stimuli (Matei, Ferrera, Riche & Taylor, 2016). From the late
1990s, the arrival of advanced tools such as functional imaging, EEG,
MEG, PET, single-cell recordings in awake, transcranial magnetic
stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation (TMS and tDCS)
have allowed to study the relationship of neural activities with behavioural
correlates of attention. A rich body of neuroimaging studies has now
examined functional brain response associated with attention in both
healthy subjects and patients (Fabio, Gangemi, Caprì, Budden, & Falzone,
2018; Fabio, Magaudda, Caprì, Towey, Martino, 2018; Fabio, Caprì,
Campana, & Buzzai, 2018). Consequently, new theories of attention have
been developed.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
29
1.3.1. The Current Neuropsychological Framework of Attention
The current neuropsychological framework of attention is based on
specific assumptions about attentional processes. These principles are
universally accepted and empirically demonstrated. It is universally
accepted that people cannot simultaneously process and respond to an
infinite quantity of information (Caprì, Gugliandolo, Iannizzotto, Nucita, &
Fabio, 2019). This means that attention enables information reduction
(Cohen, 2014). Moreover, attention selects the information. In other words,
attending not only reduces the quantity of information but also establishes
a priority of particular information for further processing (Cohen, 2014). It
is widely accepted that attentional processes are connected with higherorder cognition, such as memory, language, and perception. Hence,
attention is not a unitary process, it is determined by multiple factors and
most likely by a network of neural systems. In addition, attention is
temporally and spatially distributed. This principle claims that the spatial
characteristics of the environment influence the attentional processes
underlying the particular situation. Attention also produces a tendency
toward a temporal continuity of response to a stimulus, but this continuity
is subject to competing influences. Attention has a limited capacity, which
is due to the energetic state of person, motivational factors, and natural
differences across individuals.
Although there is data to debate, current neuropsychological studies
support the idea that attention is simultaneously governed in both bottom
up and a top-down processes. When attention is oriented by environmental
events, additional focusing often occurs subsequently. After an initial
response to a stimulus, we may either tune our attention to a finer level of
featural resolution or draw our attention to a less specific level of detail. To
realize such attentional tuning, neural systems must exist that are capable
of exerting supervisory control over other neural systems that are
responsible for more basic sensory processes (Cohen, 2014).
Lastly, attention is not localized at one brain site, it is governed by a
network of neural systems. This principle is very important as it confirms
Complimentary Contributor Copy
30
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
that attention is not a unitary process, both theoretically and empirically.
The neuroanatomic system of attention will be described in the third
chapter of this book.
1.3.2. The Computational Model of Attention
The applications of visual attention models in computer vision
emerged during the 1990s. Early applications were for object detection and
recognition, first in natural images and then in complex satellite imagery
(i.e., remote sensing and radar imagery). Recently, object detection
methods have been combined with the visual attention concept, called
salient object detection. Saliency can be defined by the combinations of
values of image parameters such as intensity, colour, orientation, size and
others. Particular local structures, such as edges, curvature, corners, shape
and location are also considered relevant measures of saliency (Matei,
Ferrera, Riche & Taylor, 2016).
Gao and Vasconcelos (2009) have used the feature decomposition of
Itti and Koch (2001). In this approach, saliency is determined by the
discrimination obtained from the mutual information between centre and
surround. Zhang et al. (2008) have created a set of Boolean feature maps
using the Lab colour space and have gathered statistics from a set of
natural scenes to train sets of features used to estimate saliency. In this
method, saliency is indicated if features in a region are comparatively rare
in the background.Valenti, Sebe, and Gevers (2009) have employed
features based on the edges of colour regions and their curvature. Achanta,
Hamami, Astrada, and Susstrunk (2009) has also used the Lab colour space
but blurs the images with a Gaussian kernel and has used the difference
with the original image to identify salient regions. Lastly, Cheng, Mitra,
Huang, Torr, and Hu (2015) have used a distance metric in Lab colour
space to measure contrast between regions and estimate saliency. The
number of colours is minimised to reduce computation. This approach has
been used to segment salient objects.
It is difficult to gather all research in the field of computational
attention as there is a large body of studies. We have cited the main works
in which the feature-based methods have been used. This approach
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
31
incorporates some form of top-down input either through supervised
learning or a targeted choice of features (Matei, Ferrera, Riche &
Taylor, 2016).
CONCLUSION
The multidisciplinary nature of attention leads to many different
definitions. Overall, attention can be defined as the allocation of cognitive
resources to prioritize incoming information to bring it to a conscious state,
update a scene model, update memory, and influence behaviour. In this
chapter, we have presented the classical taxonomy of attention. We have
also gathered the historical theories of attention. In the late 1950s, D.
Broadbent proposed a “bottleneck” model in which he described the
selective properties of attention. His idea was that attention acts like a filter
(selector) of relevant information based on basic features, such as colour or
orientation for images. However, Broadbent’s theory has been criticized.
Deutsch and Deutsch (1964) introduced a “late selection” model, where
attentional selection is basically a matter of memory processing and
response selection. The idea is that all information is acquired, but only
that which fits semantic or memory-related objects is selected to reach
awareness. Treisman (1960) proposed the Attenuation Theory, where
attention occurs in two distinct steps. First, a pre-attentive parallel
effortless step analyses objects and extracts features from those objects. In
a second step, those features are combined to obtain a hierarchy of focus
attention which pushes information towards awareness. Posner (1956)
supported a spatial selection approach and Kahneman introduced the
theory of capacity supporting the idea of mental effort. In the last part of
this chapter, we have introduced the current theories of attention. In
particular, we have focused on neuropsychological studies and applications
of visual attention models in computer sciences.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
32
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
REFERENCES
Achanta, R., Hamami, S., Astrada, F., & Susstrunk, S. (2009). Frequencytuned salient region detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami Beach.
Allport, A. (1989). Visual attention. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of
cognitive science (pp. 631-682). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359.
Betts, J., McKay, J., Maruff, P., & Anderson, V. (2007). The Development
of Sustained Attention in Children: The Effect of Age and Task Load.
Child Neuropsychology, 12(3), 205-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09297040500488522.
Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon
Press.
Caprì, T., Gugliandolo, M. C., Iannizzotto, G., Nucita, A., & Fabio, R.A.
(2019). The influence of media usage on family functioning. Current
Psychology, 1-10. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-019-00204-1
Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of
forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859 – 880.
Cheng, M. M., Mitra, N. J., Huang, X., Torr, P. H. S., & Hu, S.-M. (2015).
Global contrast based salient region detection. IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 37(3), 569–582.
Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech,
with One and with Two Ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 25(5), 975. doi:10.1121/1.1907229.
Cohen, R. A. (2014). The neuropsychology of attention (2nd ed.). New
York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-0-387-72639-7.
Colquhoun, W. P., & Baddeley, A. D. (1967). Influence of signal
probability during pretraining on vigilance decrement. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 153-155. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0024087.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
33
Corbetta, M. (1998). Frontoparietal cortical networks for directing
attention and the eye to visual locations: Identical, independent, or
overlapping neural systems? Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 95, 831-838.
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and
stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3,
201–215.
Coull, J. T. (1998). Neural correlates of attention and arousal:
Insights from electrophysiology, functional neuroimaging, and
psychopharmacology. Progress in Neurobiology, 55, 343-361. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0082(98)00011-2.
De Brigard, F. & Prinz, J. (2010). Attention and consciousness. WIREs:
Cognitive Science, 1(1), 51–59.
De Gangi, G., & Porges, S. (1990). Neuroscience Foundation of Human
Performance. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy
Association Inc.
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural Mechanisms of Selective
Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some Theoretical
Considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80–90.
Fabio, R. A. (2009). Relationship between automatic and controlled
processes of attention and leading to complex thinking. New York,
Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Accession Number: WOS:
000273473000008.
Fabio, R. A. (2017). The study of automatic and controlled processes in
ADHD: a reread and a new proposal. Mediterranean Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-33.
Fabio, R. A., & Antonietti, A. (2012). Effects of hypermedia instruction on
declarative, conditional and procedural knowledge in ADHD students.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 2028–2039.
Fabio, R. A, & Caprì, T. (2015). Autobiographical memory in ADHD
subtypes. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40, 2636. DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2014.983057.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
34
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Fabio, R. A., & Caprì, T. (2017). The executive functions in a sample of
Italian adults with ADHD: attention, response inhibition and
planning/organization. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology,
5 (3), 1-17. DOI: 10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1636.
Fabio, R.A., Caprì, T., Campana, R., & Buzzai, C. (2018). The
construction and validation of an Italian Dsyfunctional Belifies
Questionnaire. Current Psychology, 1-11. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-0189958-8
Fabio, R. A, Caprì, T., Mohammadhasani, N., Gangemi, A., Gagliano, A.,
Martino, G. (2018). Frequency bands in seeing and remembering:
comparing
ADHD
and
typically
developing
children,
Neuropsychological Trends, 24, 97-116.
Fabio, R.A., Caprì, T., Lotan, M., Towey, G.E., & Martino, G. (2018).
Motor abilities are related to the specific genotype in Rett Syndrome.
In Kevin V. Urbano (Ed). Advances in Genetics Research. Volume 18.
New York: Nova Science Publisher. ISBN: 978-153613265-6;978153613264-9
Fabio R. A., Caprì, T., & Romano, M. (in press). From controlled to
automatic processes and back again the role of contextual features.
Europe’s journal of Psychology.
Fabio, R. A., Castriciano, C., & Rondanini, A. (2015). Auditory and visual
stimuli in automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 19, 771–778.
Fabio, R.A., Martino, G., Caprì, T., Giacchero, R., Giannatiempo, S., La
Briola, F., Banderali, G., Canevini M.P. & Vignoli, A. (2018). Long
chain poly-unsaturated fatty acid supplementation in Rett Syndrome: a
randomized placebo-controlled trial. Asian Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 10, 37-46. DOI: 10.3923/ajcn.2018.37.46
Fabio, R.A., Magaudda, C., Caprì, T., Towey, G., Martino, G. (2018).
Choice Behavior in Rett Syndrome, the consistency parameter. Life
Span and Disability, XXXI, 1, 47-62.
Fabio, R. A., Piran, S. G., & Antonietti, A. (2005). Auditory vigilance in
typically developing subjects and subjects with attention deficit-
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
35
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical and Developmental
Psychology, 9(1), 151-157.
Fabio, R. A., & Urso, M. F. (2014). The analysis of Attention Network in
ADHD, attention problems and typically developing subjects. Life
Span and Disability, 17 (2), 199-221.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary
covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18,
1030-1044.
Gangemi, A., Caprì, T., Fabio, R.A., Puggioni, P., Falzone, A. M. &
Martino, G. (2018). Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
and Cognitive Empowerment for the functional recovery of diseases
with chronic impairment and genetic etiopathogenesis. In Kevin V.
Urbano (Ed). Advances in Research. Volume 18. New York: Nova
Science Publisher. ISBN: 978-153613265-6;978-153613264-9
Gao, D., Han, S., & Vasconcelos, N. (2009). Discriminant saliency, the
detection of suspicious coincidences, and applications to visual
recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence.
Gaspelin, N., Leonard, C. J., & Luck, S. J. (2017). Suppression of overt
attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. Attention,
Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 45-62.
Gutschalk, A., Micheyl, C., Oxenham, A. J. (2008), Neural correlates of
auditory perceptual awareness under informational masking. PLoS
Biology, 6, e138.
Hawkins, H. L., Hillyard, S. A., Luck, S. J., Mouloua, M., Downing, C. J.,
& Woodward, D. P. (1990). Visual attention modulates signal
detectability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 16(4), 802– 811.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological
theory. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Hickey, C., McDonald, J. J., & Theeuwes, J. (2006)., Electrophysiological
evidence of the capture of visual attention. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 604 – 613.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
36
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S., & Shimojo, S. (1993). Voluntary and stimulus
induced attention detected as motion sensation. Perception, 22, 517–
526.
Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2003a). Covert and overt voluntary
attention: Linked or independent? Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 102–
105.
Itti, L., & Koch, C., (2001). Computational modelling of visual attention.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(3), 194 –203.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: H. Holt and
Company.
Johnston, W. A., & Heinz, S. P. (1978). Flexibility and capacity demands
of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(4),
420-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.420.
Kahneman D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Klein, R. M. (1980). Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive control
of visual attention? In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and
performance VIII (pp. 259–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klein, R. M., & Pontefract, A. (1994). Does oculomotor readiness mediate
cognitive control of visual attention? In C. Umilta` & M. Moscovitch
(Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious
information processing (pp. 333– 350). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Martino, G., Caprì, T., Castriciano, C., & Fabio, R. A. (2017). Automatic
deficits can lead executive deficits in ADHD. Mediterranean Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 5 (3), 1-32. DOI: 10.6092/22821619/2017.5.1669.
Martino, G., Catalano, A., Bellone, F., Sardella, A.,Lasco, C., Capri', T.,
Langher, V., Caputo, A., Fabio, R.A., & Morabito, N. (2018). Vitamin
D status is associated with anxiety levels in postmenopausal women
evaluated for osteoporosis. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 6, 1-16. DOI: 10.6092/2282-1619/2018.6.1740
Marzocchi, G. M., Molin, A., & Poli, S. (2000). Attenzione e
metacognizione. Come migliorare la concentrazione della classe.
Trento : Erickson.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
37
Matei, M., Vincent, F., Nicolas, R., & Taylor, J. G. (2016). From Human
Attention to Computational Attention - A Multidisciplinary Approach.
Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems.
Mazer, J. (2011). Spatial Attention, Feature-Based Attention, and
Saccades: Three Sides of One Coin? Biological Psychiatry, 69(12),
1147–1152.
Mohammadhasani, N., Fabio, R. A., Fardanesh, H., & Hatami, J. (2015).
The link between visual attention and memory in ADHD and normally
developing students: seeing is remembering? Reti, Saperi e LinguaggiItalian Journal of Cognitive Science, 1(2), 89-102.
Mohammadhasani, N., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Mozayani, N., & Fabio
R.A. (2018). The pedagogical agent enhances mathematics learning in
ADHD students. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6),
2299-2308.
Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the
influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 11, 56–60. doi:10.1080/17470215908416289.
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and
conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326.
Nakayama, K., & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient
components of focal visual attention. Vision Research, 29(11), 1631–
1647.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to Action: Willed and
Automatic Control of Behaviour. In: R. J. Davidson., G. E. Schwartz,
& D. E. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation (pp. 1-14).
New York: Plenum Press.
Noudoost, B., & Moore, T. (2011). A reliable microinjectrode system for
use in behaving monkeys. Journal of Neurosciensces and Methods,
194, 218 223. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.10.009,pmid:20951736.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a MultipleItem Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies.
Journal of Service Research, 2, 307-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
109467050024001.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
38
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Pestilli, F., & Carrasco, M. (2005). Attention enhances contrast sensitivity
at cued and impairs it at uncued locations. Vision Research, 45, 1867–
1875.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 2, 3–25.
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H.
Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X:
Control of language processes (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm
Sarter, M., Givens, B., & Bruno, J. P. (2001). The Cognitive Neuroscience
of Sustained Attention: Where Top-Down Meets Bottom-Up. Brain
Research Reviews, 35, 146-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01650173(01)00044-3.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending,
and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
Stevens, C., & Bavelier, D. (2012). The role of selective attention on
academic foundations: A cognitive neuroscience perspective.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(Suppl 1), S30-S48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.11.001.
Stevens, C., & Bavelier, D. (2012). The role of selective attention on
academic foundations: A cognitive neuroscience perspective.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(Suppl 1), S30-S48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.11.001.
Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in
selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
3(6), 449–459. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80015-3.
Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The
effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception and Psychophysics, 49,
83-90.
Theeuwes, J. (1994). Bottom-up capture and attentional set: Selective
search for colour and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 799-806.
Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override
attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 65-70.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Current Theory
39
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.
Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99.
Theeuwes, J., De Vries, G.-J., & Godijn, R. (2003). Attentional and
oculomotor capture with static singletons. Perception &
Psychophysics, 65(5), 735–746.
Theeuwes, J., & Chen, C. Y. D. (2005). Attentional capture and inhibition
(of return): The effect on perceptual sensitivity. Perception and
Psychophysics, 67 (8), 1305-1312.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., & Irwin, D. E. (2011). Attention on our mind:
the role of spatial attention in visual working memory. Acta
psychologica, 137 2, 248-5.
Theeuwes, J., Van Der Burg, E., & Belopolsky, A. (2008). Detecting the
presence of a singleton involves focal attention. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review, 15 (3), 555-560.
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by
ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571-590.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of
attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5.
Titchener, E. B. (1908). Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling
and Attention. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.1037/10867-000.
Umiltà, C. (2001). Mechanisms of attention. In B. Rapp (Ed.), Handbook
of Cognitive Neuropsychology (pp. 135-158). Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Valenti, R., Sebe, N., & Gevers, T. (2009). Isocentric color saliency in
images. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Image Processing, Cairo.
Zhang, L., Tong, M. H., Marks, T. K., Shan, H., & Cottrell, G. W. (2008).
SUN: A Bayesian framework for saliency using natural statistics.
Journal of Vision, 8(7), 32, 1–20.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus
to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and
Psychology, 18, 459-482.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
40
Tindara Caprì, Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Emma Towey et al.
Yantis, S. (1996). Attentional capture in vision. In A. Kramer, M. Coles, &
G. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of selective visual
attention (pp. 45–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal directed and stimulus driven determinants of
attentionalcontrol. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention &
performance XVIII (pp. 73-104). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yantis, S., & Johnson, D. N. (1990). Mechanisms of attentional priority.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 16(4), 812– 825.
Yeshurun, Y., & Carrasco, M. (1998). Attention improves or impairs visual
performance by enhancing spatial resolution. Nature, 396, 5, 72–75.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
View publication stats