Attention-Setting and Human Mental Function

Abstract

This article provides an introduction to experimental research on top-down human attention in complex scenes, written for cognitive scientists in general. We emphasize the major effects of goals and intention on mental function, measured with behavioral experiments. We describe top-down attention as an open category of mental actions that initiates particular task sets, which are assembled from a wide range of mental processes. We call this attention-setting. Experiments on visual search, task switching, and temporal attention are described and extended to the important human time scale of seconds.

Full text

Citation: Sanocki, T.; Lee, J.H.
Attention-Setting and Human Mental
Function. J. Imaging 2022,8, 159.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
jimaging8060159
Academic Editor: Manoranjan Paul
Received: 29 November 2021
Accepted: 20 May 2022
Published: 1 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Journal of
Imaging
Review
Attention-Setting and Human Mental Function
Thomas Sanocki * and Jong Han Lee
Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; lee84@usf.edu
*Correspondence: sanocki@usf.edu
Abstract:
This article provides an introduction to experimental research on top-down human attention
in complex scenes, written for cognitive scientists in general. We emphasize the major effects of goals
and intention on mental function, measured with behavioral experiments. We describe top-down
attention as an open category of mental actions that initiates particular task sets, which are assembled
from a wide range of mental processes. We call this attention-setting. Experiments on visual search,
task switching, and temporal attention are described and extended to the important human time
scale of seconds.
Keywords: attention; visual attention; human perception; human cognition
1. Introduction
Human visual cognition examines specific mental functions, using behavioral mea-
sures. Our aim here is to leverage 6+ decades of experimental research in visual cognition
and attention, to present a picture of the way the brain is cognitively “active” during
everyday perception: the top-down implementation of intentions and goals, realized by
attention-setting. Triggered by goals such as find (object), attention sets up and prioritizes
relevant machinery in neural subsystems. These are not the only top-down effects in the
brain, but they appear to be the most powerful and important.
We present attention-setting within a general treatment of attention that emphasizes
visual tasks in complex scenes. We begin with some historical background and then develop
the concept of attention-setting in tasks such as visual search. This is followed by a selective
review of major experimental results on task-switching and temporal attention. Then, we
develop the idea of attention-setting over seconds. This time scale is especially important
in human behavior [
1
]. We present evidence that attention is especially powerful when
it can be set and changed over seconds. We finish with some relevant highlights from
neuroscience and cognitive health. Our general argument is that attention-setting is a
pervasive top-down mental skill, which plays out over multiple timescales, especially the
humanly important time scale of seconds.
1.1. Pieces of History
A basic principle of attention is that perceivers choose one stream of information out
of many; this is a main way in which the brain is active. This idea was first explicated by
William James in 1890 [
2
] and has been re-stated in recent decades [
3
,
4
]. The brain is limited,
in contrast to the immense informational richness of any real-world situation. Furthermore,
computational studies demonstrate that interpretation is exponentially more complex than
the stimulus, an even stronger motivation for attention [5,6].
In the early days of scientific psychology in the 1890’s, attention was a main topic
(e.g., [
7
,
8
]). Effective empirical approaches such as “task switching” were being developed
into the 1920’s [9]. However, when behaviorism became dominant in the 1930s and 1940s,
attention studies were not published in primary experimental research journals. Attention
was not directly measurable. The cognitive approach to attention re-appeared in the 1950s
as internal mental constructs, and the evidence-based inferences necessary to support them
J. Imaging 2022,8, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8060159 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jimaging

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 2 of 18
were again allowed in the research mainstream. Since that time, the field of attention has
developed and flourished. Major results have emerged and been replicated many times,
producing some areas of general empirical agreement.
The larger world-context in the 1950s was the dawning of the information age and
ideas such as measuring information and manipulating it. Attention researchers could
present different types of information and infer internal mechanisms from the resulting
patterns of human performance. In the first major theory, attention was hypothesized to
be an early filter that selected among sensory information coded in parallel across sensory
registers. Consequently, information matching a single sensory register (a “channel”)
should be easy to select and then process further into later, deeper perception [
10
,
11
].
With the then-modern technologies of tape recorders and headphones, researchers used
broad sensory channels such as input ear, and difficult tasks such as dichotic listening:
repeating one “relevant” message (e.g., words in the left ear) while ignoring other,
irrelevant messages (words in the right ear). The early filter construct was supported by
the result that repeating an input stream was efficient when it was distinct on a sensory
basis (e.g., high voice in one ear) but less efficient when sensory selection was difficult
(e.g., relevant inputs switched ears, or high voices in both ears) [10,11].
The second major theory moved the filter later into the processing stream, positing a
late filter after basic perceptual identification had been completed. Objects were identified
in parallel, and the filter was used to select a single identified object for admission to
limited consciousness (e.g., [
12
,
13
]. As Kahneman and Treisman noted in 1984 [
14
], early
and late selection were scientific paradigms in the Kuhnian sense [
15
]; the paradigms
provided theory together with methods. The late selection methods tended to favor efficient
processing; the stimuli were familiar and simple (e.g., letters in arrays), as were the tasks
(e.g., detect a T or F), which encouraged late processing. The early selection methods, on
the other hand, involved broad channels (such as ear) and difficult tasks that encouraged
early section [
14
]. Ultimately, the early versus late debate was resolved with hybrid models
in which each type of selection could occur, but with important differences such as the
relative ease of early selection and the broadness of late selection [16,17].
Note that attention was used mainly as a noun, denoting a mechanism. The early
decades of research can be viewed as a search for the mechanism of attention, as well as a
search for manipulations that could separate attention from other processes, such as percep-
tion. Kahneman and Treisman [
14
] acknowledged the fruitfulness of the filter metaphors
but proposed a framework that was literally more integrative. Perception and attention
were functionally related in the key construct of mental “object-representations”. A mental
object can be thought of as a top-node in a perceptual hierarchy. Object representations
efficiently integrated perceptual, conceptual, and event information, and this produced
a priority for unified mental concepts. The object-metaphor was also quite fruitful and
generated considerable research. The functional relationship between perception and atten-
tion was new to this attention framework, although some perceptual theorists of the 1970’s
suggested a similar relationship [
1
,
18
,
19
]. The functional relationship continues in most
modern conceptions, including the present one.
As attention research grew over the next decades, the range of attentional functions
studied in experiments greatly increased. Franconeri [
20
] describes and explains 15 different
attentional limitations within a common framework. Geng, Leber, and Shomstein [
21
]
recently called for research articles on attention and perception and published what they
termed 40 different views. Research has also begun to address the complexity of real-
world situations, which magnifies the importance of attention and priority (e.g., [
6
,
22
–
24
]).
Situations that approach real-world complexity are emphasized here.

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 3 of 18
Over the decades, the theoretical metaphors of attention became less singular and
more general, each capturing important aspects of attention: a single pool of energetic
resources (e.g., [
25
]), multiple pools with distinct resources (e.g., [
26
,
27
]), the object-centered
structures mentioned [
14
], attentional sets (e.g., [
28
,
29
]), and biased competition between
representational networks [
30
–
33
]. The multiplicity of concepts suggests that the functions
of attention are too varied and too pervasive to be captured by any single mechanism.
1.2. Attention-Setting
Attention-setting is a set of skills, i.e., mental actions. Attention-setting is a verb phrase
designating the category of mental actions that initiate and prioritize mental functioning
within the limited resources of the human brain. Attention sets up mental processing in
accordance with the observer’s goals and situational parameters. Once set up, familiar
processes such as “read that highway sign” run as a continuing interaction involving the
mind, the display, and the larger situation. We illustrate attention-setting further with an
example involving the well-studied process of visual search. Attention-setting extends
over seconds in the example, consistent with our emphasis on humanly important time
scales [
1
]. Theories and evidence supporting this example are noted below. In the section
that follows, we relate attention-setting to the theoretical concepts in the literature and
illustrate the pervasiveness of attention.
Theory and Evidence behind the Example
A comprehensive theory of visual search has been developed by Wolfe and col-
leagues and provides details on many important visual mechanisms—Guided Search
Version 6.0 [34]
. The theory integrates well-supported details of sensory coding chan-
nels and the priority map, and the paper provides useful further references. Zelinsky,
Chen, Ahn, and Adeli [
35
] provide an amazing catalog of computational search mod-
els, with an emphasis on the general problem and real-world scenes. Zelinsky et al.
treat eye fixations, which are closely linked to attention; they provide a complementary
theoretical approach to top-down influences (see also [36]).
Attentional templates are included in most search models, and many experiments
measure the set-up of the templates. Priority maps are also central constructs; they
combine top-down knowledge and visual features from bottom-up parallel process-
ing (e.g., [
34
,
37
,
38
]). Priority maps are used to guide the search toward likely tar-
get locations and away from unlikely locations [
39
]. The trade-offs in energetic
resources between different tasks is a long-standing topic in basic and applied re-
search
(e.g., [27,40])
. Internal attention, such as turning attention into one’s memory,
is becoming a distinct research topic (e.g., [
41
,
42
]). Unconscious problem solving is a
growing area of research. The idea that processes will be modified over time, through
interaction with the world, was proposed by Neisser [
1
] as the perceptual cycle. We
will develop the idea below as a useful framework for understanding attention over
the time scale of seconds.
Imagine that the power went out at night and it is near dark in one’s home. Intention
takes the form of a goal such as find (flashlight), and attention sets up processes to meet
the goal. Attention sets up visual search processes by initiating the creation of an internal
attentional template for the goal object (target), in visual working memory. The template
can be fairly specific (my red flashlight in dim light) or abstract in various ways (any light
source). The template is used in a matching process that compares it to a priority map of the
visible world. The priority map combines sensory information (bottom-up features) and
knowledge (top-down) on a spatial map. The sensory features in the map are weighted by
priority (e.g., reddish glints of light, non-accidental shape properties). The knowledge includes
historically likely locations (the flashlight should be on its shelf ). The attentional template is
matched against the priority map, to guide the search through the immediate scene. In
near darkness, the search may be slow because the incoming features are limited by low
light (a data limitation; [
25
]). Because bottom-up information is weak, top-down location

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 4 of 18
knowledge will be more important, but only if valid (and only if the flashlight has been put
back on its shelf ).
Once the search process has begun, it will continue to require some mental resources
but usually less than at the start. In addition, attention can set up new processes such as
reaching or tactile search, again drawing on resources. Attention can also set up internal
processes. It can initiate wider problem solving, including memory retrieval, which is set
up with a memory cue (e.g., when did I last use the flashlight?). The results of these processes
(when I was fixing the toilet) can then be used to modify priorities. Problem solving is aided
by abstract goals (find the light) and is set up by attention; a goal can serve as a memory cue
that can activate unconscious knowledge. Phones now have flashlights. The activation of an
unconscious memory is not directly caused by intention; activation is caused because an
abstract goal (memory cue) is broadcast to memory and there is a match.
In sum, attention sets up and guides processes at multiple levels and modifies priorities
as results come in from the world, decision making, and memory. Attention sets up,
guides, and prioritizes larger systems (e.g., visual search, tactile search, and memory
retrieval), initiates the construction of central objects within systems (e.g., attentional
templates and retrieval cues), and implements priorities at multiple levels (e.g., favoring
particular tasks, locations for search, and certain visual features, while inhibiting unlikely
features and locations). The exact number of attention-setting functions may be difficult
to know because humans invent and tune new cognitive skills. Nevertheless, we think
that attention-setting could explain the major goal-directed mental actions of the perceiver,
across many situations.
The boundary between attention and other mental processes is an interesting issue. We
argue that a strict boundary is not yet appropriate for attention. A more fruitful approach
is to assume that attention-setting works directly with other processes and examine those
functional relationships. At today’s levels of discovery, functional relationships are more
important than carving mental nature into independent parts.
Attention-setting is an expansion of attentional set theory, which has emphasized
specific sets within controlled situations (e.g., [
23
,
28
,
43
]). We expand upon this idea,
arguing that that attention-setting is a powerful set of skills involving setting and tuning.
Setting often takes place over seconds, during interactions with the world. As we explain
later in this paper, the settings of attention can have profound effects. Because set helps
determine the information that observers pick up from the world, set also helps determine
what observers understand and learn [1].
1.3. Relations to Other Major Concepts and Processes
The mental resources prioritized in attention-setting are often called “attention”
in the literature, for simplicity. Resource limitations are critical (e.g., [
25
–
27
]), and
attention-setting is constrained by the limitations. “Attending” is a basic result of
attention-setting. Attention-setting is similar to the widely studied construct of atten-
tional control (e.g., [
6
,
44
]). Attentional control is a fundamental executive process in
the brain (e.g., [
45
]). However, attention-setting emphasizes the setup of brain pro-
cesses to run rather than continuous control. Set-up (preparation) is often a highly
resource-intensive process (e.g., [46]).
Attention-setting (and attention in general) is functionally related to many mental
processes, and we will now mention some of the most important. Extending upward,
there is the executive domain of meta-awareness and executive processing, where initiating
and setting processes is often critical (e.g., see [
47
]). Attention in general is closely related
to awareness; Graziano’s attention-schema theory provides good treatment (e.g., [
48
]).
Attentional control is a major portion of intelligence, and attention-setting may be a core
mechanism in the portion termed fluid intelligence, the flexible, creative, and problem-
solving aspects of intelligence [
44
,
49
]. Skillful attentional control is necessary for creativity
and imagination. Attention sets up mental “simulations” that involve knowledge and

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 5 of 18
images assembled from memory and that may seem to run themselves as long as they
continue to be attended (e.g., [50–52]).
Attention-setting works with each of the main types of memory. It is functionally
related to working memory, which is a highly flexible, temporary representational
space. Attention sets up and uses working memory in multiple ways, for example,
as an image-like memory buffer, or a verbal rehearsal mechanism to remember a set
of numbers [
53
]. Attention-setting also interacts with long-term memory, by setting
up cues broadcast to memory (e.g., [
54
]). In fact, memory retrieval can be viewed as
attention-setting turned inward [
42
]. Third, attention-setting is initially critical for
developing implicit memory skills such as driving. Beginners set up the new tasks
carefully in a serial, attention-controlled (and resource-intensive) manner. However,
with practice the procedures become an implicit memory that runs with low resource
requirements. The links between intentions and the networks that implement them
are critical, and recent work has begun to flush them out conceptually and formally
(e.g., [
55
,
56
]). In summary, attention-setting contributes to many mental processes, and
these functional relations are active research topics.
1.4. The Present Approach
The strongest arguments for the attention-setting framework come more from the
“big picture” of attention than from any single experiment. We believe attention-setting is
consistent with many of the thousands of experiments on top-down attention. Furthermore,
critical support also comes from success in related fields, when attention is viewed as an
active and pervasive top-down influence on networks. This includes research on attentional
disabilities [
57
] and computational vision [
6
]. Near the end of this paper, we will bring
in evidence from neuroscience and the emerging sciences of attentional and cognitive
health and note that attention-setting has biological characteristics such as exercise-benefits
and fatigue.
The overall goal in this paper is to provide an informative but highly selective tour
of attention and attention-setting in the field of visual cognition. We use verbal and
descriptive concepts typical of the field and emphasize relatively complex situations that
begin to resemble the real world. The aim is to capture the most important messages from
recent decades of experimental research, in a “consumer-friendly” manner. That should
mean readable, but in psychology and neuroscience, the units readers care about most are
“effect sizes”. How large is the effect of attention-setting on mental performance? Visual
cognition provides some scales that are simple and intuitive. Here, our favored scale is
the ability to perceive something in plain sight, such as a gorilla. Usually performance is
near 100% for this process, but research puts some interesting marks on the other side of
the scale.
2. Attention-Setting and Gorilla Missing
The missed-gorilla experiment is a landmark demonstration in the domain of at-
tention [
58
]. We will describe that experiment, but first readers should note that they
can still experience misperception in the original video, or experience it anew in the se-
quel, “Monkey Business” (http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html (accessed on
10 June 2021)).
The original experiment demonstrates the powerful effects of attention-setting over
seconds. As mentioned, noticing a gorilla is usually near 100%, even in video. However,
this ability is greatly reduced when healthy observers engage in a visually and mentally
challenging task while watching a video with two interacting teams of players. In a
representative condition, there were two teams of three players each (white shirts versus
black shirts), and the task was to notice passes of a basketball by one team (task focus 1)
and count the number of passes (task focus 2). The players in the other shirts should be
ignored (suppression; task 3). This makes the observers busy, maybe as busy as crossing
a city street. The critical finding was that when the gorilla walked in and pounded

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 6 of 18
his chest, only 42% of observers reported noticing it when subsequently asked, “Did
you notice anything else?”. The results have stood up to years of scrutiny, including
careful considerations of memory [
43
], and further research, including more controlled
conditions to be described. Because false alarms were low (no false gorilla reports by
another group of observers), the hit rate is a valid scale of conscious perception. The
missed gorilla is a marked failure of the mental processes that lead up to conscious
perception, a failure that lasts for seconds. There is likely to be limited unconscious
processing in this situation, however, as will be noted.
A reasonable explanation for the conscious failures is that the attention settings
were for the relevant task, pass-counting. The settings enable processes for the three
challenging foci mentioned above, beginning with the complex processes of tracking
complex objects in space (both the ball and white-shirt players). This requires guidance
systems for eye movements and attentional resources, as well as the executive direction
of counting and remembering. The task set also includes the suppression of non-relevant
information and especially the black-shirt players. Interestingly, when the colors are
reversed for other observers (attend to black shirts, ignore white), the color-settings
change and the gorilla is noticed 83% of the time. However, for other subjects, the
gorilla is replaced by a woman wearing light grey clothes with an umbrella, and she is
noticed only 58% of the time.
Thus, the results are not due to a single mechanism but instead a configuration of
systems, the task set. The task settings are also likely to pertain to time and size scale; the
basketball is the primary object and is relatively small and fairly fast, in contrast to the
slower and larger unexpected people in guises. The configuration of systems gives the
set selective high efficacy in the relevant task but causes the human to miss many other
stimuli outside of the set. Noticing an unexpected stimulus requires bottom-up capture, to
be described.
Gorilla Missing with More Control, and Bottom-Up Capture
Attention-setting is an internal action that changes the functioning of the brain. The
match or mismatch between the settings and the experimenter’s stimuli can produce
large differences in performance. Researchers can observe the match and mismatch
by changing the task, and do so repeatedly (100s of times) to obtain more reliable
data. When the task changes back and forth repeatedly, participants learn to change
settings with some efficiency; this is known as task switching or task reconfiguration.
This has been an intense area of research (e.g., for reviews see [
59
–
61
]), and we will
be switching back to it throughout this paper. Note that in task switching research,
the search for the mechanism (a single structural bottleneck) may be successful only
in limited situations (cf. [
62
]). Perspectives of flexibility and practice are necessary to
explain major results [
59
]. Thus, we return to the first switch in task, which usually
produces the largest change in mental function.
Observing the first matches and mismatches of set requires a special type of exper-
iment, usually one without task-specific practice that stabilizes performance. Findings
such as missed gorillas helped inspire an era of these experiments that led to important
insights. Gorilla missing with more controlled displays was measured in a program of
experiments led by Steve Most, who was a graduate student drafted onto the Simons and
Chabris gorilla team. Together, they directed an army of researchers with laptops far and
wide across campuses, to conduct dozens of short experiments [29,63].
In a number of experiments, the stimuli were 8 smallish black or white circles and
squares, about the size of a large-ish coin [
29
,
63
]. The shapes moved haphazardly across
the display screen over seconds. Depending on the experiment, the task set was to
track 4
of them, defined by color or by shape, and to ignore the 4 others. When squares
were tracked (black and white), attention set a visual-cognitive “square-template” for the
relevant squares while inhibiting irrelevant circles. The role of the gorilla was played by
an unexpected ninth object that entered the screen. When attention was set for squares,

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 7 of 18
observers noticed a square intruder much more often than a circle-intruder. In another
experiment, the template for relevance was “black” (or “white”), and observers tracked
that color. The gorilla was played by a cross similar in size, and either black, white,
or one of 2 intermediate levels of grey. The cross was almost always noticed when
it was the attended black or white color (93%), but noticing went down linearly the
next
3 grayscale
steps away, to 3% with maximum departure (e.g., black relevant; white
cross). This function, spanning most of the range in performance scale, wins a prize for
the largest effect size in this paper.
Another important special paradigm was devised by two sages of the cognitive
revolution, Ariel Mack and Irvin Rock [
64
]. They sought to measure perception that was
unprepared and low on directed attentional resources. The observers’ efforts were directed
to a briefly appearing cross, for which they would compare the length of the two segments
(to establish if the horizontal or vertical was longer). For 3 trials, only the cross appeared
but briefly, so the observers were set for optimal size processing. On the fourth trial, the
cross appeared again but along with a nearby, unexpected stimulus. Would observers
notice a simple but unexpected stimulus such as a line or colored shape? Across many
experiments, a variety of simple stimuli went unnoticed by most observers, even though
the stimuli should activate simple feature detectors in the observers’ brains. At this point,
the results were quite pleasing to a hard-core top-down theorist: even simple stimuli were
not perceived, if the observer was not set for them.
However, researchers keep on experimenting, and the simple conclusion was
qualified with an important twist. Mack and Rock [
64
] found that if the unexpected
stimulus was more meaningful—the observer’s printed name—most observers (87%)
noticed it. The finding echoes a now-classic finding that seriously hampered the early
filter model, concerning information from an unattended (ignored) ear during dichotic
listening. If selection was sensory-based, then everything in the ignored sensory channel
was thought to simply decay; indeed, participants remembered nothing from that
ear. Then, Moray [
65
] found that the participant’s own name could be noticed and
remembered. Thus, unexpected but significant signals may be processed into awareness,
through a primarily bottom-up route. Classic theories of attention added mechanisms
for prioritizing significant information (e.g., [
66
]). More recent research indicates that
this critical result has narrow boundary conditions, however [
67
]. More generally, as
theorists recognized in the 1970s, the flow of information during perception is both
bottom-up and top-down in nature (e.g., [
19
,
25
]). Humans like to be driven by their
knowledge, but adaptation requires being open to unexpected inputs and new ideas.
Modern theories include rapid bottom-up routes for efficiently processing familiar
stimuli, along with more controlled top-down mechanisms (e.g., [
68
–
70
]). In fact, a
possibly major difference between individuals is the degree to which a person is top-
down or bottom-up in general [71].
However, in a more precise sense, the relative strength of purely bottom-up routes
and top-down settings remains a critical issue. The ability of an unexpected but physi-
cally salient stimulus to capture attention is a demonstration of the power of bottom-up
processing (e.g., [
72
,
73
]). For example, observers set to respond to blue-Ts can be slowed
by a nearby but “irrelevant” red-X. This is at least somewhat independent of top-down
settings. However, note that observers in such studies form general sets, such as using
vision and responding rapidly to sudden stimuli. In the now large literature on this topic,
critical factors include the spatial region to which attention is set and the degree of task-
relevance of the stimulus (see [
74
], this issue). Bottom-up capture can be eliminated in
some general conditions, for example, with an exclusionary attentional set such as “ignore
red” or “ignore that region” (e.g., [
75
–
77
]). Thus, in many cases, the capture of attention is
contingent on high-level settings (e.g., [
78
]). This is a critical indication of the power of top-
down processing. Purely bottom-up capture appears to be limited to certain experimental
conditions [79].

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 8 of 18
Nevertheless, bottom-up processing routes are efficient for a variety of stimuli,
from familiar words to novel but typical everyday scenes. Additionally, some infor-
mation is prioritized, including negative information and self-relevant information
(e.g., [
80
,
81
]). Some processing is unconscious. For example, if a human is set to watch
a certain region of the video screen and an unexpected but familiar word appears
near there, it is likely be processed to some depth in the brain, independent of other
ongoing processes. The familiar word activates feature, letter, and word detectors in
intermediate brain areas, resulting in some activation of meaning (cf. [
30
,
82
,
83
]). This
can happen while an observer’s awareness is focused on another task. Such effects
qualify the large effect-sizes of tasks set on mental function that we have emphasized.
When a stimulus such as a gorilla or a circle in clear view is missed, there is likely to be
some stimulus-specific processing at unconscious levels.
The research discussed so far has focused on limited windows of time—single critical
trails and events, either in the first parts of experiments or in some cases repeated over and
over again. However, attention-setting takes place in time. Larger changes are likely to
take more time, and sets can develop or change over time in an experiment. We are about
to enter a new and important dimension.
3. Attention-Setting in Time
Time is critical in human thought and behavior, and for attention. Sequential
dependencies occur in time, as in the “attentional blink”. This effect comes from an
elegant paradigm for studying temporal attention. The method involves a stream of
simple stimuli presented one after the other in a single location (rapid serial visual
presentation). The method obviates eye movements and allows the researchers to focus
on effects of time. In a typical version, the stimuli are single characters that appear for a
10th of a second (
100 ms
) in the same location; most stimuli are single digits, but a letter
appears twice in the stream, and observers are to remember each letter. Observers get set
to “grab” the letters from the stream and put their name in working memory. The first
letter target is fairly easy to grab, and performance for it is high (typically above 85%).
However, while that target is encoded and stored, there is a huge “blink”, during which
a second letter is missed as much as 60% more than the first letter (e.g., [
84
,
85
]). There is
now a large, rich literature on the attentional blink [
86
]. The deficit for a second target
is largest at about 200 to
300 ms
after the target and gradually recovers up to 500 ms.
Interestingly, a second target can sneak into encoding and memory soon after the first
target; it appears to enter with the first target’s set. This “sparing” of temporally close
second targets gets stronger when observers can adopt a “grab-several set”, creating
“room” in memory (resources) for 2 or 3 items [87].
The attentional blink is a sequential dependency that plays out in time; the second
target suffers only because a first target preceded it and was attended to. In their thorough
review of the blink literature, Dux and Morais [
86
] argue that no single mechanism can
explain the collection of experimental results. The effects seem to involve multiple processes
and limitations. At the start of a trial, participants use a target’s visual and semantic features
to form an attentional template, which is used for selecting and enhancing targets when
they occur. The attentional template can be fairly high-level, specifying object- and even
scene targets (e.g., [
88
]). Subsequent processes encode a selected target, including its name
code and a context in working memory; this helps resist replacement by the next stimulus.
There is also active evaluation and inhibition of distractors, and response processes [
86
].
This research area remains active, with elegant recent work on neural and mathematical
bases [89,90].
In the blink paradigm, the participant must rush to deal with simple but fleeting
items. If we expand the time scale to seconds, then larger and more meaningful sets can
be instantiated and deeper and more profound sequential dependencies arise. We first
illustrate the issues and then turn to the evidence.

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 9 of 18
3.1. Information and Attention over Seconds
The seconds time scale was noted as important because human behavior often plays
out over seconds [
1
]. Moreover, ongoing interactions between the perceiver and the world
become apparent [
1
]. Attention-setting can be central in these interactions because the
settings determine the information that humans pick up from the environment. This can
produce a profound effect on subsequent behavior because picked-up information can
become understanding and learning but only if picked up [
1
]. If information is missed
because attention was set differently, there is no understanding or learning.
Consider attention-setting during everyday perception in a public square. Although
observers do not usually shout this, “there are so many tasks to do!” Tasks include people
to watch and identify, sculptures and fountains to appreciate, and a multitude of events
at various time scales to perceive and monitor. The observer can set the task set to “open”
and see many things, or adopt an infinite number of more restrictive but sensitive sets.
Appreciating live theater in the square requires a continuing, high-level set for perception
and comprehension of that event. In contrast, watching birds steal food requires a finer
temporal set (those birds can be quick). Additionally, practiced bird watchers, who know
what to “look for” in bird behavior, will likely detect the crime before amateurs because
knowledge helps guide (set) attention. However, watching birds attentively will reduce
attention to the play.
Neisser argued that there was a continuing interaction between the perceiver’s knowl-
edge and attention on one hand, and the information in the world on the other. Perceivers
bring differing knowledge to a situation and set their attention differently. A theater lover
might arrange their picnic with a great view of the play but not notice the birds until it is too
late. A bird watcher will be able to anticipate and follow the theft of food. An individual
who loves theater and knows about birds will search for protective cover (overhead wires
work) before opening the picnic basket and enjoying the show.
Attentional sets cause temporal dependencies; the set at one moment determines
what information is picked up from the world, and the extracted information can then be
processed to become meaning for the perceiver. The new meaning can then guide further
pick-up of information. In theater, early acts set up themes to attend to in later acts. This is a
sequential dependency; the later acts will be understood fully only if the early information
had been attended to. The contingent pick-up of information is a sense in which perception
and understanding are constructed by attention.
3.2. Evidence from the Seconds Time Scale
The missed gorillas and shapes show that when participants are set for one task,
unexpected information can be missed [
29
,
58
,
63
]. The missed gorilla walked and thumped
its chest for over 5 s in the middle of the video [
58
]. Most et al. [
29
] treated the missing of
unexpected stimuli in terms of information pick up and Neisser’s [
1
] theory, and this led to
the prized large effects discussed earlier. In this research, attention settings determine what
is picked up over seconds. However, there has been relatively little follow-up research at
the seconds timescale. A major challenge is that there are multiple mental processes taking
place over seconds, reducing experimental control. Researchers in attention tend to favor
experiments that isolate particular processes, and that is more easily done at sub-second
timescales (<300 milliseconds).
Research in other areas of cognition demonstrates the importance of how attention is
set. There is considerable research on interactions over seconds in language comprehen-
sion. For example, in understanding the meaning of passages, it greatly helps to have an
appropriate title to set up comprehension processes. If comprehension processes are not set
up properly, perception, comprehension, and learning are slowed and can fail [
91
,
92
]. More
generally, scaffolding can set up more effective attention, learning, and problem solving [
93
].
Understanding a play may involve an event-model that, once set up, guides attention and
eye fixations [
94
]. Diagrams for problem representation can be designed to guide attention
more effectively over seconds, increasing the rate of problem solving [
95
]. Setting attention

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 10 of 18
influences what problem-solvers attend to, which can improve their solutions [
96
]. Simi-
larly, weather map displays can be designed to optimize bottom-up information in ways
that interact positively with top-down knowledge, facilitating inference processes that take
place over seconds [97].
Attention over time is critical for understanding real-world behaviors such as driving.
There is now a sizeable literature on attention and driving, and the interactions of tasks,
distraction, and driving hazards (e.g., [
98
,
99
]. In-vehicle distractions such as using a
navigation system compromise attention to the road for many seconds [
99
]. In fact, Strayer
et al. [
99
] found that deficits continue even after the distracting task is completed, for
up to 27 s.
In more basic attention research, the interplay of set and perception has been examined
in the large body of research on task switching, but usually at sub-second time scales. When
participants have completed one simple task, it is relatively easy to do that task again with
a new stimulus. If the task changes, it takes a fair amount of time (several 10ths of a
second) to set up another familiar task and perform it [
59
–
61
]. As noted, task-switching
processes are complex. This is true even when the stimuli and tasks are generally simple
(e.g., switches between a parity task, is 8 odd or even? and a magnitude task, is 8 more or less
than 5). A number of interesting experimental designs have been developed, and numerous
processing systems have been implicated in this research, as well as large practice effects
and a good amount of flexibility [
59
–
61
]. However, conflict is often created by design
because it increases the effect size to a greater level. In the digit-tasks example, a digit
activates two conflicting task-interpretations and responses, complicating processing and
task switching. Appreciating the full power of task switching in the brain may require
complex tasks that do not confuse the brain about what to do.
Research on task switching with complex displays that change over seconds is begin-
ning (e.g., [
23
,
100
]). Sanocki and Sulman [
23
] designed a dynamic task-switching situation
from the ground up, to examine perceptual efficiency as task sets are instantiated and
changed. This research produced large effects over seconds, and inklings of profound
effects. We now describe the research in some detail.
To produce complex dynamic displays, Sanocki and Sulman used changing objects as
the elements and presented many of them during trials that lasted 60 s. Figure 1a–c show
three time slices, from different task conditions. In every condition, all four quadrants
were relevant. The small objects were the individual elements (object tokens); each one
“lived” over a period of 4 s: the token appeared (“onset”), changed, and then offset over
that period. A total of 144 tokens appeared during the trial. The observers’ task was
to monitor these tokens and look for targets, which changed more than distractors. For
example, in the color task, each token onset was green-yellow, then became more yellow,
and then changed back to green-yellow. Distractors changed some toward yellow but
a target changed more so (to match the yellow border in the figure). Observers tried to
share attention among all of the active tokens but shift attention to detect a token changing
strongly (i.e., a target). Since all four quadrants were relevant, observers had to continually
shift their attention and eyes. Depending on the condition, there was a total of 4 different
tasks that could occur, each with its own distinct object-type. The most basic contrast in the
experiments was between single-tasking conditions (Figure 1a; one task throughout the
display), and multi-tasking conditions, with a different task in each quadrant (Figure 1b).
Training occurred at the beginning of the session. Further details and a description of
typical trials are provided below.
Details and Illustration of Method
Before the test period, participants were trained with the four tasks and their distinct
object-types. Only one token was shown at a time during training. Observers learned
each task to near perfection. Then testing began, with many tokens on each trial. The
tasks are described next, but first we describe a typical trial. At the start of a trial,
the four (empty) quadrants were shown until the observer pressed a spacebar. Then,
object tokens started to appear, one at a time but several per second, until reaching the

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 11 of 18
maximum of 12 active tokens. Each token was offset at the end of its lifetime of 4 sec,
and a replacement token would soon appear. During the 60 sec trials, there was a total
of 136 distractor tokens and 8 target tokens, distributed throughout the quadrants.
Observers were instructed to respond only to targets. On single-task trials, observers
would see only one object-type and one task in all four quadrants (e.g., Figure 1a).
There were two multi-task conditions used in the experiment. During the first type,
there was one type of a different task in each quadrant (4 tasks in total; Figure 1b) but
otherwise the same timing parameters as single-task trials. The second type (Figure 1c)
will be explained below.
The four tasks were thought to require different processes in the brain, and they
were distinguished by their distinct object tokens. The color task had square tokens
changing from green-yellow to yellow and back, as mentioned. The shape task had
red tokens changing in concavity, from fat-diamonds to concave (star-like) and back.
The location task had grey squares moving linearly (and bouncing off walls); targets
passed through the central square outline (“more” is defined as the proximity to the
central square). Finally, in the motion task, the blue squares moved left to right with
up/down deviations; the targets moved up or down more, as if drunk.
J. Imaging 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
quadrants were shown until the observer pressed a spacebar. Then, object tokens started
to appear, one at a time but several per second, until reaching the maximum of 12 active
tokens. Each token was offset at the end of its lifetime of 4 sec, and a replacement token
would soon appear. During the 60 sec trials, there was a total of 136 distractor tokens and
8 target tokens, distributed throughout the quadrants. Observers were instructed to
respond only to targets. On single-task trials, observers would see only one object-type
and one task in all four quadrants (e.g., Figure 1A). There were two multi-task conditions
used in the experiment. During the first type, there was one type of a different task in each
quadrant (4 tasks in total; Figure 1B) but otherwise the same timing parameters as single-
task trials. The second type (Figure 1C) will be explained below.
The four tasks were thought to require different processes in the brain, and they were
distinguished by their distinct object tokens. The color task had square tokens changing
from green-yellow to yellow and back, as mentioned. The shape task had red tokens
changing in concavity, from fat-diamonds to concave (star-like) and back. The location
task had grey squares moving linearly (and bouncing off walls); targets passed through
the central square outline (“more” is defined as the proximity to the central square).
Finally, in the motion task, the blue squares moved left to right with up/down deviations;
the targets moved up or down more, as if drunk.
Figure 1. (a–c) Snapshots from 3 conditions: (a) single-task, (b) multiple-task grouped, and (c) mixed
multi-task. The timing and location of the tokens appeared random, but were structured by
algorithm; thus the tokens in the figures are at different stages in their lifetimes. (d) shows lines fit
Figure 1.
(
a
–
c
) Snapshots from 3 conditions: (
a
) single-task, (
b
) multiple-task grouped, and (
c
) mixed
multi-task. The timing and location of the tokens appeared random, but were structured by algorithm;
thus the tokens in the figures are at different stages in their lifetimes. (
d
) shows lines fit to data from
a single-task condition (“low complexity” on top, from Experiment 3), and the highest complexity
condition (“high complexity” on bottom, from Experiment 2, mixed multi-tasking). Data were fit
separately for Times 1–3 s and 4–10 s.

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 12 of 18
We began with the basic single versus multiple task question: are participants more
efficient when they continually perform one task, compared to continually switching
between four tasks? Performance was measured well by the hit-rate for detecting targets,
and the average performance for single-task conditions was compared to the four-task
condition. Since the four-task condition required continual task switching, we expected a
large advantage for the single-task conditions. The average single-task hit rate was 78.4%,
and the multi-task hit rate was 14.1% lower. This difference (multi-task cost) was highly
reliable and moderately large. However, it was not yet the catastrophic deficit expected
when complexity became too high. The result suggests that in the multi-task condition,
participants are learning to switch between tasks with a fair degree of efficiency, although
less than in single-task conditions.
The potentially profound results involve the preparation of efficient processing over
time. Preparation effects were found previously (Sulman and Sanocki, unpublished) and
were replicated and expanded here. After participants detected one target during the
trial, there was a deficit for other targets appearing during the next few seconds. Like the
attentional blink, this effect was a sequential dependency. In the present case, detecting and
responding to one target likely requires time and effort, as does the resumption of processes
that monitor tokens. The detection of new targets suffers as a result. The lower task-
complexity conditions produced the largest preparation effect because efficient processing
was re-set over 3 s. This is illustrated by the top function in Figure 1d (low complexity).
The hit rates were fit to lines, separately for the first 3 data points, and then for seconds 4
through 10. As can be seen, the hit rate was relatively low 1 sec after the first target and
increased until 3 s because efficient processing was re-set. (Actual data points and their
variability are shown in [
23
].) This result suggests that there is a set-up process that must
be completed for optimal efficiency to be achieved. The low-complexity function shown is
for single-tasking. However, even in the first multi-tasking condition (Figure 1b), observers
were also able to re-set for efficiency over approximately 3 sec, if the response was not
complex. (Observers re-set at rates similar to single-tasking but reached a lower asymptote
of efficiency; see [23].)
Sanocki and Sulman [
23
] further increased the complexity, in search of a catastrophic
breakdown. Combining two complexity manipulations in a second type of multi-tasking
condition resulted in a breakdown, and a complete elimination of efficient set-up. This
result is shown in the bottom function in Figure 1d (highest complexity). Processing
efficiency never increased after a target detection; the observers lost their ability to become
efficient. In contrast, the same observers were able to set up efficiency in the less complex
single-tasking condition. The elimination of effective re-setting in the highest complexity
condition is a potentially profound result.
The two complexity manipulations and the results will now be explained. The first
manipulation involved the stimuli; instead of grouping objects (tasks) by quadrant, the
objects (tasks) were mixed together in the display space (Figure 1c). This raised the costs of
multi-tasking considerably; the overall deficit compared to single-tasking was now 34.1%
compared to 14.1%. Furthermore, the re-setting of the efficient performance was slowed
(data in [
23
]). The overall results show that multiple tasks are handled more efficiently
when the four tasks are spatially segregated (as in Figure 1b) than when not (Figure 1c).
Spatial organization may be a principle of human behavior; we group tasks in the home,
for example, putting cooking in one room, relaxing in another, and private behaviors in
still others.
The second complexity manipulation was the response rule, which could be simple or
complex in different experiments. (In the simple-response experiments (lower complexity),
participants pressed a button whenever a target occurred. In the complex-response experi-
ments (higher complexity), participants had to indicate the quadrant that a target appeared
in by pressing one of four corresponding buttons.) As response complexity increases,
additional attentional resources are presumed to be necessary for encoding and responding

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 13 of 18
to a target, leaving fewer resources for re-setting attention. The re-set process occurred
more slowly in the complex response conditions than in the simple conditions.
When the difficult mixed condition was combined with complex responses, perfor-
mance reached its lowest level (the 34.1% deficit mentioned relative to the single-tasking
control). Additionally, and perhaps most significantly, when the time course of re-setting
was examined (“highest complexity” in Figure 1d), there was no re-setting at all in this
difficult condition and no rise over time after a target detection. One could say that the
conditions were so challenging that attention could not properly set up efficient processing.
These large deficits were found throughout the session, over many trials, and constituted
repeated missed gorillas. Yet, when the same observers were in single-task conditions, their
attention was able to set up efficient processing over seconds.
The results are consistent with the claim that attention-setting is an essential top-down
process that takes place over time. Human goals such as detecting targets efficiently in a
complex world require the preparation and set up of mental processes over seconds. The
results are relevant to real-world functioning because human behavior often plays out over
seconds. Complex tasks can take seconds or more to set up. When tasks become too difficult,
there may be a complete breakdown in comprehension, with major negative consequences.
For example, learners in school may become overwhelmed when the material is too difficult,
or soldiers in battle may become overwhelmed by multiple critical threats; in each case, the
cognitive overload can result in a complete task failure such as that in the high-complexity
condition. Further behavioral research at the seconds timescale should be illuminating.
Recent work in our lab with dynamic displays and the seconds timescale has found further
large effects on task set-up with known tasks. The results are another example of contingent
pick-up. When observers were set for one task, they missed information about a task change
for many trials, reducing performance with the new task markedly (Sanocki and Lee, in
preparation).
4. The Biological Attention-Setting Machine
We now round out the big picture with some relevant findings from neuroscience and
cognitive health. Neuroscientists have developed incisive methods and are beginning to
apply them in situations that approach real-world complexity at the seconds timescale.
In particular, Crittenden, Mitchell, and Duncan led a program of research that captured
attention-setting machinery in the brain with complex tasks. They used fMRI methods,
which measure the time scale of seconds, because the integration of the signals over seconds
is necessary for reliability. In [
101
], participants switched between six different tasks, and a
large task difference was (for example) a switch between a knowledge-task and a spelling
task (Is this object (picture) a living thing versus Does A fit H_VE to make a word?). The
researchers found that major brain networks were active during these large switches but
much less so with small task-switches, between more similar tasks.
The research team has identified a major brain network that underlies task switching,
which they term the multiple demand network (e.g., [
101
–
103
]). The multiple demand (MD)
network serves to connect and guide processing while completing the tasks. It binds the
task set, including task-relevant cognitive fragments such as memory registers, integrations
of relevant stimulus inputs, task rules, appropriate knowledge, and potential responses and
actions, while inhibiting irrelevant processing. The network is coordinated and general-
purpose, hence, the name Multiple Demand. The parts are active in a variety of different
tasks, and their activity levels are correlated across the tasks. In other words, these regions
appear to be programmable for different tasks, serving as multiple-use computational
space. The network includes more specialized regions; however, the specialized regions are
most apparent only when the tasks are easy and the attentional load is low [
103
]. When the
task demands are high, due to task complexity or time pressure, the general portions of the
MD network become more active and more tightly interconnected. This allows for rapid
communication within the entire network [
103
]. Moreover, under pressure the general MD

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 14 of 18
network expands in neural extent, increasing in size by spreading more into the frontal
brain (anterior spread; [103]).
In summary, major portions of the MD network are dynamically allocated general
computational space. When a task is complex, such as watching a theatrical play, attention
may work by setting up processing in the MD space, including connections to more
specialized regions for language and perhaps drama. The MD network can expand into
rental space (into added areas of cortex) in case of bird attacks. The MD network may be
the main implementation level of attention-setting, in the Marrian sense [
104
]. The set-up
processes often takes place over seconds. The better perception (and the comprehension
and learning) that can result is a way in which perception is actively constructed.
One could say that attention-setting and executive processing are organic functions
somewhat like a muscle; a muscle’s strength is built up through active use, and it can get
weak through fatigue or dis-use. Aerobic exercise increases blood flow to the brain and
strengthens executive processing while protecting against the negative effects of aging
(e.g., [
105
–
107
]). However, while using attention is good in general, continual overuse
due to chronic stress may not be healthy (e.g., [
108
]). One might imagine the MD network
starting to let off steam or burning oil.
Even periods of healthy mental exercise, such as normal hard work, can result in
temporary mental fatigue. Although not damaging, fatigue does reduce the ability to set
attention subsequently [
109
]. Fortunately, research is also beginning to document ways to
restore attention. These include the relaxed, pleasant use of attention (“gentle fascination”),
removed from strong demands [
109
,
110
], as well as methods of meditation (e.g., [
111
]. This
research is part of a larger goal of developing guidelines that encourage human flourishing,
including the healthy functioning of the brain, the self, and attention [112].
5. Conclusions
Attention research brings together multiple perspectives and disciplines. Here, we
proposed a mental action framework for understanding top-down attention: attention-
setting is a process of setting up and prioritizing brain functions in the service of intentions
and goals. Attention-setting causes large effects in human performance, as reviewed.
Appropriate attention-setting can result in highly efficient selective perception and learning,
whereas inappropriate settings can prevent it. This is a major way in which the brain is
“active” and perception is constructed. The attention-setting framework can explain major
attention phenomena. However, much further specification of the framework is needed,
including research on the potentially profound effects over time.
We argue that attention-setting is not a clearly defined “part” of the brain; its work-
ings are functionally integrated with other mental processes, including basic perception
and memory. Attention-setting is most critical in complex human situations, and recent
neuroscience research is beginning to chart this functional network in the brain [
102
,
103
].
The high complexity of attention-setting in real-world situations invites and even requires
the use of powerful research tools, including computational programs involving sets of
networks (e.g., [
6
]). Now is a great time for research on the complexities of attention, and
an exciting time for integrative brain research in general.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, T.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, T.S.; writing—
review and editing, T.S. and J.H.L.; visualization, T.S. and J.H.L. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented here are available from the authors.

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 15 of 18
Acknowledgments:
We thank the reviewers for their very helpful comments. We also thank Jonathan
Doyon for comments on an earlier manuscript, and the members of the Visual Cognition Lab for
their help.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Neisser, U. Cognition & Reality; W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
2. James, W. Chapter XI: Attention. In The Principles of Psychology; Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1890.
3. Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology; Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
4.
Yantis, S. Control of visual attention. In Attention; Pashler, H., Ed.; Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis: Hove, UK,
1998; pp. 223–256.
5. Tsotsos, J.K. When We Study the Ability to Attend, What Exactly Are We Trying to Understand? Unpublished manuscript.
6.
Tsotsos, J.K.; Abid, O.; Kotseruba, I.; Solbach, M.D. On the control of attention processes in vision. Cortex
2021
,137, 305–329.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Angell, J.R.; Pierce, A.H. Experimental research upon the phenomena of attention. Am. J. Psychol. 1892,4, 528–541. [CrossRef]
8. Swift, E.J. Disturbance of the Attention during simple Mental Processes. Am. J. Psychol. 1892,5, 1–19. [CrossRef]
9. Jersild, A.T. Mental Set and Shift. Arch. Psychol. 1927,89, 5–82.
10. Broadbent, D.E. Failures of attention in selective listening. J. Exp. Psychol. 1952,44, 428–433. [CrossRef]
11. Broadbent, D. Perception and Communication; Pergamon Press: London, UK, 1958.
12. Deutsch, J.A.; Deutsch, D. Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychol. Rev. 1963,70, 80–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Schneider, W.; Shiffrin, R.M. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol.
Rev. 1977,84, 1–66. [CrossRef]
14.
Kahneman, D.; Treisman, A. Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Variants of Attention; Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R.,
Beatty, J., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 29–61.
15. Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1962.
16. Johnston, W.A.; Heinz, S.P. Flexibility and capacity demands of attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1978,107, 420–435. [CrossRef]
17. Lavie, N. Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005,9, 75–82.
18.
Massaro, D.W. Experimental Psychology and Information Processing; Rand McNally College Publishing Company: Chicago,
IL, USA, 1975.
19.
Palmer, S.E. Visual perception and world knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. Explor. Cogn.
1975
,
279–307.
20.
Franconeri, S.L. The Nature and Status of Visual Resources. In Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology; Reisberg, D., Ed.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
21.
Geng, J.J.; Leber, A.B.; Shomstein, S. Attention and Perception: 40 reviews, 40 views. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2019
,29, v–viii.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Lavie, N. Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
1995
,21, 451–468.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Sanocki, T.; Sulman, N. Complex, dynamic scene perception: Effects of attentional set on perceiving single and multiple event
types. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2013,39, 381–398. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Tsotsos, J.K. Analyzing vision at the complexity level. Behav. Brain Sci. 1990,13, 4233–4469. [CrossRef]
25. Norman, D.A.; Bobrow, D.G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cogn. Psychol. 1975,7, 44–64. [CrossRef]
26.
Wahn, B.; König, P. Is Attentional Resource Allocation across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent? Adv. Cogn. Psychol.
2017
,
13, 83–96. [CrossRef]
27. Wickens, C.D. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2002,3, 159–177. [CrossRef]
28.
Folk, C.L.; Remington, R.W.; Wright, J.H. The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion,
abrupt onset, and color. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1994,20, 317–329. [CrossRef]
29.
Most, S.B.; Scholl, B.J.; Clifford, E.R.; Simons, D.J. What You See Is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the
Capture of Awareness. Psychol. Rev. 2005,112, 217–242. [CrossRef]
30.
Dehaene, S.; Changeux, J.P.; Naccache, L.; Sackur, J.; Sergent, C. Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable
taxonomy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006,10, 204–211. [CrossRef]
31.
Desimone, R.; Duncan, J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
1995
,18, 193–222. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32.
Fan, J.; McCandliss, B.D.; Fossella, J.; Flombaum, J.I.; Posner, M.I. The activation of attentional networks. Neuroimage
2005
,26,
471–479. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Franconeri, S.L.; Alvarez, G.A.; Cavanagh, P. Flexible cognitive resources: Competitive content maps for attention and memory.
Trends Cogn. Sci. 2013,17, 134–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Wolfe, J.M. Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2021,28, 1060–1092. [CrossRef]

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 16 of 18
35.
Zelinsky, G.; Chen, Y.; Ahn, S.; Adeli, H. Changing perspectives on goal-directed attention control: The past, present, and future
of modeling fixations during visual search. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020;
pp. 231–286. [CrossRef]
36.
Rolfs, M. Attention in Active Vision: A Perspective on Perceptual Continuity Across Saccades. Perception
2015
,44, 900–919.
[CrossRef]
37.
Eckstein, M.P.; Drescher, B.A.; Shimozaki, S.S. Attentional cues in real scenes, saccadic targeting, and Bayesian priors. Psychol. Sci.
2006,17, 973–980. [CrossRef]
38.
Torralba, A.; Oliva, A.; Castelhano, M.; Henderson, J.M. Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world
scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychol. Rev. 2006,113, 766–786. [CrossRef]
39.
Ng, G.J.P.; Patel, T.N.; Buetti, S.; Lleras, A. Prioritization in Visual Attention Does Not Work the Way You Think It Does. J. Exp.
Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2021,47, 252–268. [CrossRef]
40. Kramer, A.F.; Wiegmann, D.A.; Kirlik, A. Attention: From Theory to Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
41.
Chun, M.M.; Golomb, J.D.; Turk-Browne, N.B. A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2011
,62, 73–101.
[CrossRef]
42.
Logan, G.D.; Cox, G.E.; Annis, J.; Lindsey, D.R.B. The episodic flanker task: Memory retrieval as attention turned inward. Psychol.
Rev. 2021,128, 397–445. [CrossRef]
43. Moore, C.M. Inattentional blindness: Perception or memory and what does it matter? Psyche 2001,7, 178–194.
44.
Burgoyne, A.P.; Engle, R.W. Attention Control: A Cornerstone of Higher-Order Cognition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2020
,29,
624–630. [CrossRef]
45.
Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The unity and diversity of executive functions
and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol.
2000
,41, 49–100. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
46. Baldauf, D.; Deubel, H. Attentional landscapes in reaching and grasping. Vis. Res. 2010,50, 999–1013. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Eppinger, B.; Goschke, T.; Musslick, S. Meta-control: From psychology to computational neuroscience. Cogn. Affect. Behav.
Neurosci. 2021,21, 447–452. [CrossRef]
48.
Webb, T.W.; Graziano, M.S. The attention schema theory: A mechanistic account of subjective awareness. Front. Psychol.
2015
,
6, 500. [CrossRef]
49.
Duncan, J.; Chylinski, D.; Mitchell, D.J.; Bhandari, A. Complexity and compositionality in fluid intelligence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 2017,114, 5295–5299. [CrossRef]
50.
Barsalou, L.W.; Prinz, J.J. Mundane creativity in perceptual symbol systems. In Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual
Structures and Processes; Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Vaid, J., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1997;
pp. 267–307.
51.
Seel, N.M. Mental Models and Creative Invention. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship;
Carayannis, E.G., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
52.
Ward, T.B.; Smith, S.M.; Vaid, J.E. Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes; American Psychological
Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-1-55798-906-2.
53.
Pearson, J.; Keogh, R. Redefining Visual Working Memory: A Cognitive-Strategy, Brain-Region Approach. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2019,28, 266–273. [CrossRef]
54.
Malmberg, K.J.; Raaijmakers, J.G.W.; Shiffrin, R.M. 50 Years of Research Sparked by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). Mem. Cogn.
2019,47, 561–574. [CrossRef]
55. Logan, G.D. Automatic control: How experts act without thinking. Psychol. Rev. 2018,125, 453–485. [CrossRef]
56. Posner, M.I.; Rothbart, M.K.; Tang, Y.Y. Enhancing attention through training. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2015,4, 1–5. [CrossRef]
57.
Rosenberg, M.D.; Finn, E.S.; Scheinost, D.; Constable, R.T.; Chun, M.M. Characterizing Attention with Predictive Network Models.
Trends Cogn. Sci. 2017,21, 290–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58.
Simons, D.J.; Chabris, C.F. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception
1999
,28,
1059–1074. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Koch, I.; Poljac, E.; Müller, H.; Kiesel, A. Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative
review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychol. Bull. 2018,144, 557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Monsell, S. Task switching. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003,7, 134–140. [CrossRef]
61.
Vandierendonck, A.; Liefooghe, B.; Verbruggen, F. Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychol.
Bull. 2010,136, 601–626. [CrossRef]
62. Pashler, H. Attention; Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis: Hove, UK, 1998.
63.
Most, S.B.; Simons, D.J.; Scholl, B.J.; Jimenez, R.; Clifford, E.; Chabris, C.F. How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and
selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychol. Sci. 2001,12, 9–17. [CrossRef]
64. Mack, A.; Rock, I. Inattentional Blindness; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998.
65.
Moray, N. Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.
1959
,11, 56–60.
[CrossRef]
66. Treisman, A.M. Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychol. Rev. 1969,76, 282–299. [CrossRef]

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 17 of 18
67.
Gronau, N.; Cohen, A.; Ben-Shakhar, G. Dissociations of Personally Significant and Task-Relevant Distractors Inside and Outside
the Focus of Attention: A Combined Behavioral and Psychophysiological Study. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
2003
,132, 512–529.
[CrossRef]
68.
Ahissar, M.; Hochstein, S. The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning. Trends Cogn. Sci.
2004
,8, 457–464. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
69.
Paap, K.R.; Newsome, S.L.; McDonald, J.E.; Schvaneveldt, R.W. An activation–verification model for letter and word recognition:
The word-superiority effect. Psychol. Rev. 1982,89, 573–594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
Tsotsos, J.K.; Culhane, S.; Cutzu, F. From Theoretical Foundations to a Hierarchical Circuit for Selective Attention, Visual Attention and
Cortical Circuits; Braun, J., Koch, C., Davis, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 285–306.
71. Bar, M. From objects to unified minds. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2021,30, 129–137. [CrossRef]
72. Theeuwes, J. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Percept. Psychophys. 1992,51, 599–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73.
Theeuwes, J. Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
Percept. Perform. 1994,20, 799. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Gronau, N. To Grasp the World at a Glance: The Role of Attention in Visual and Semantic Associative Processing. J. Imaging
2022
,
7, 191. [CrossRef]
75. Bacon, W.F.; Egeth, H.E. Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Percept. Psychophys. 1994,55, 485–496. [CrossRef]
76.
Dreisbach, G.; Haider, H. That’s what task sets are for: Shielding against irrelevant information. Psychol. Res.
2008
,72, 355–361.
[CrossRef]
77.
Folk, C.L.; Remington, R.W.; Johnston, J.C. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J. Exp.
Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1992,18, 1030–1044. [CrossRef]
78.
Wyble, B.; Folk, C.; Potter, M.C. Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.
Perform. 2013,39, 861–871. [CrossRef]
79.
Luck, S.J.; Gaspelin, N.; Folk, C.L.; Remington, R.W.; Theeuwes, J. Progress toward resolving the attentional capture debate. Vis.
Cogn. 2021,29, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80.
Cunningham, S.J.; Vogt, J.; Martin, D. Me first? Positioning self in the attentional hierarchy. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
2022,48, 115–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81.
Schäfer, S.; Wentura, D.; Frings, C. Creating a network of importance: The particular effects of self-relevance on stimulus
processing. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2020,82, 3750–3766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Elgendi, M.; Kumar, P.; Barbic, S.; Howard, N.; Abbott, D.; Cichocki, A. Subliminal priming—State of the art and future
perspectives. Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 54. [CrossRef]
83.
Van den Bussche, E.; Van den Noortgate, W.; Reynvoet, B. Mechanisms of masked priming: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.
2009
,
135, 452–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84.
Raymond, J.E.; Shapiro, K.L.; Arnell, K.M. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?
J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1992,18, 849–860. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Chun, M.M.; Potter, M.C. A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
Percept. Perform. 1995,21, 109–127. [CrossRef]
86.
Dux, P.E.; Marois, R. The attentional blink: A review of data and theory. Atten. Percept. Psychophys.
2009
,71, 1683–1700. [CrossRef]
87.
Olivers, C.N.L.; van der Stigchel, S.; Hulleman, J. Spreading the sparing: Against a limited-capacity account of the attentional
blink. Psychol. Res. 2007,71, 126–139. [CrossRef]
88.
Einhäuser, W.; Koch, C.; Makeig, S. The duration of the attentional blink in natural scenes depends on stimulus category. Vis. Res.
2007,47, 597–607. [CrossRef]
89.
Tang, M.F.; Ford, L.; Arabzadeh, E.; Enns, J.T.; Troy, A.W.V.; Mattingley, J.B. Neural dynamics of the attentional blink revealed by
encoding orientation selectivity during rapid visual presentation. Nat. Commun. 2020,11, 434. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90.
Wyble, B.; Callahan-Flintoft, C.; Chen, H.; Marinov, T.; Sarkar, A.; Bowman, H. Understanding visual attention with RAGNAROC:
A reflexive attention gradient through neural AttRactOr competition. Psychol. Rev. 2020,127, 1163–1198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91.
Bransford, J.D.; Johnson, M.K. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.
J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1972,11, 717–726. [CrossRef]
92.
Wiley, J.; Rayner, K. Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements.
Mem. Cogn. 2000,28, 1011–1021. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93.
Bransford, J.D.; Brown, A.L.; Cocking, R.R. How People Learn; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 11.
94.
Loschky, L.C.; Hutson, J.P.; Smith, M.E.; Smith, T.J.; Magliano, J.P. Viewing Static Visual Narratives through the Lens of the Scene
Perception and Event Comprehension Theory (SPECT). In Empirical Comics Research: Digital, Multimodal, and Cognitive Methods;
Laubrock, J., Wildfeuer, J., Dunst, A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 217–238.
95.
Grant, E.R.; Spivey, M.J. Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychol. Sci.
2003
,14, 462–466.
[CrossRef]
96.
Rouinfar, A.; Agra, E.; Larson, A.M.; Rebello, N.S.; Loschky, L.C. Linking attentional processes and conceptual problem solving:
Visual cues facilitate the automaticity of extracting relevant information from diagrams. Front. Psychol.
2014
,5, 1094–1107.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. Imaging 2022,8, 159 18 of 18
97.
Hegarty, M.; Canham, M.S.; Fabrikant, S.I. Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance
in a graphic inference task. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2010,36, 37–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98.
Horrey, W.J.; Wickens, C.D.; Consalus, K.P. Modeling drivers’ visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle
technologies. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2006,12, 67. [CrossRef]
99.
Strayer, D.L.; Cooper, J.M.; Turrill, J.; Coleman, J.R.; Hopman, R.J. Talking to your car can drive you to distraction. Cogn. Res.
Princ. Implic. 2016,1, 16. [CrossRef]
100.
Kunar, M.A.; Watson, D.G. Visual Search in a Multi-Element Asynchronous Dynamic (MAD) World. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.
Perform. 2011,37, 1017–1031. [CrossRef]
101.
Crittenden, B.M.; Mitchell, D.J.; Duncan, J. Recruitment of the default mode network during a demanding act of executive control.
Elife 2015,4, e06481. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102.
Fedorenko, E.; Duncan, J.; Kanwisher, N. Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 2013,110, 16616–16621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103.
Shashidhara, S.; Mitchell, D.J.; Erez, Y.; Duncan, J. Progressive Recruitment of the Frontoparietal Multiple-demand System with
Increased Task Complexity, Time Pressure, and Reward. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2019,31, 1617–1630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104.
Marr, D. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information; W.H. Freeman: San
Francisco, CA, USA, 1982.
105.
Hillman, C.H.; Erickson, K.I.; Kramer, A.F. Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nat. Rev.
Neurosci. 2008,9, 58–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106.
Milham, M.P.; Erickson, K.I.; Banich, M.T.; Kramer, A.F.; Webb, A.; Wszalek, T.; Cohen, N.J. Attentional control in the aging brain:
Insights from an fMRI study of the Stroop task. Brain Cogn. 2002,49, 277–296. [CrossRef]
107.
Prakash, R.S.; Voss, M.W.; Erickson, K.I.; Lewis, J.M.; Chaddock, L.; Malkowski, E.; Alves, H.; Kim, J.; Szabo, A.; White, S.M.; et al.
Cardiorespiratory fitness and attentional control in the aging brain. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2011,4, 229. [CrossRef]
108.
Sahakian, B.J.; Langley, C.; Kaser, M.; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. How chronic stress changes the brain—And
what you can do to reverse the damage. Personal communication, 2022.
109.
Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol. Sci.
2008
,19, 1207–1212. [CrossRef]
110.
Schertz, K.E.; Berman, M.G. Understanding nature and its cognitive benefits. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2019
,28, 496–502. [CrossRef]
111.
Goleman, D.; Davidson, R.J. Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body; Penguin: London,
UK, 2018.
112.
Dahl, C.J.; Wilson-Mendenhall, C.H.; Davidson, R.J. The plasticity of well-being: A training-based framework for the cultivation
of human flourishing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020,117, 32197–32206. [CrossRef]