Attentive Tracking of Objects versus Substances

• Published in: Psychological science Vol. 14; no. 5; pp. 498 - 504
• Main Authors: vanMarle, Kristy, Scholl, Brian J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA Blackwell Publishing 01.09.2003; SAGE Publications; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Adult; Ambiguity; Attention; Cognition; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive development; Cognitive psychology; Convergence; Discrimination Learning; Experimentation; Eyes & eyesight; Female; Humans; Infants; Landmarks; Language; Language acquisition; Learning; Male; Mental objects; Motion Perception; Neonatal screening; Nouns; Object; Observational research; Orientation; Pattern Recognition, Visual; Perception; Psychology; Psychophysics; Saliency; Sight; Tracking; Trajectories; Violations; Visual perception
• ISSN: 0956-7976; 1467-9280
• DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.03451

Recent research in vision science, infant cognition, and word learning suggests a special role for the processing of discrete objects. But what counts as an object? Answers to this question often depend on contrasting object-based processing with the processing of spatial areas or unbound visual features. In infant cognition and word learning, though, another salient contrast has been between rigid co-hesive objects and nonsolid substances. Whereas objects may move from one location to another, a nonsolid substance must pour from one location to another. In the study reported here, we explored whether attentive tracking processes are sensitive to dynamic information of this type. Using a multiple-object tracking task, we found that subjects could easily track four items in a display of eight identical unpredictably moving entities that moved as discrete objects from one location to another, but could not track similar entities that noncohesively "poured" from one location to another--even when the items in both conditions followed the same trajectories at the same speeds. Other conditions revealed that this inability to track multiple "substances" stemmed not from violations of rigidity or cohesiveness per se, because subjects were able to track multiple noncohesive collections and multiple nonrigid deforming objects. Rather, the impairment was due to the dynamic extension and contraction during the substancelike motion, which rendered the location of the entity ambiguous. These results demonstrate a convergence between processes of midlevel adult vision and infant cognition, and in general help to clarify what can count as a persisting dynamic object of attention.