Resource flexibility and strategy in multiple object tracking

Date
2017
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
Tracking capacity is typically defined by a limitation of 3-4 objects, suggesting that there may be a structural constraint on attentional resources for tracking (Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). In this view, tracking capacity is item limited and the amount of resources allocated to each object is fixed. However, studies have found that tracking limits can be extended to 8 or more objects with appropriate reductions in velocity (Alvarez and Franconeri, 2007). Contrary to the discrete resource account, these findings suggest that tracking may depend on a continuous limited-capacity system in which a finite resource is divided among tracked objects in varying amounts, depending on tracking difficulty. The present set of experiments examined the nature of the resource limitations observed in multiple object tracking. ☐ The continuous resource model posits that participants can only increase the number of objects tracked by reducing the amount of resource allocated to each tracked object with accompanying reductions in the spatial precision of tracking. This prediction was evaluated using a novel version of the MOT task in conjunction with a mixture model to obtain separate estimates of the number of objects tracked and tracking precision as the number of objects to-be-tracked was varied between 1 and 6. The results showed marked individual differences at high tracking loads, where half of the participants tracked only a few targets with high precision while the remaining half tracked many targets with low precision. Experiment 2 explored whether these individual differences reflected fixed differences in the underlying tracking architecture or different strategies that could be freely adopted by any observer. Participants were instructed and incentivized to maximize the number of objects tracked at the expense of precision to determine whether tracking performance is flexible to strategy. Many but not all observers were able to flexibly trade off precision in favor of a larger number of tracked targets. These results are consistent with models that point to a limited resource whose allocation is flexibly determined by tracking demands. ☐ The flexibility of attention allocation was further tested in Experiment 3 to examine whether resources can be endogenously varied between targets. High priority targets were tracked with greater precision than low priority targets, indicating that differential amounts of attention could be distributed between tracked objects. Experiment 4 examined whether tracking resources are hemifield specific or if a common pool is shared across visual fields. Although tracking two objects was just as precise as tracking a single object when they were presented bilaterally, distractors were more likely to be mistaken for tracked objects with increased set size regardless of spatial arrangement. The results support a bilateral advantage in tracking, but not independence. Experiment 5 investigated whether people attend to all tracked objects simultaneously or if each object is attended serially. ERPs were used to measure online processing of task-relevant probes on moving objects. Consistent with a parallel account, probes occurring on tracked objects were processed with no delay regardless of the number of objects tracked, while probes on distractor objects were processed with significant delays. ☐ In summary, these results are consistent with continuous resource models that assume that tracking additional objects is accompanied by reductions in tracking precision. Allocation of this resource is subject to individual differences that depend partly on strategy but may also reflect differences in total capacity. Furthermore, people can flexibly allocate variable amount of tracking resources between targets. This resource appears to be largely hemifield specific and allocated in parallel to tracked objects.
Description
Keywords
Psychology, Attention, Event related potential, Mixture model, Multiple object tracking
Citation