Humans can efficiently look for but not select multiple visual objects

  1. Eduard Ort  Is a corresponding author
  2. Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort
  3. Tuomas ten Cate
  4. Martin Eimer
  5. Christian N L Olivers
  1. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
  2. Utrecht University, Netherlands
  3. Birkbeck College, University of London, United Kingdom

Abstract

The human brain recurrently prioritizes task-relevant over task-irrelevant visual information. A central, question is whether multiple objects can be prioritized simultaneously. To answer this, we let observers search for two colored targets among distractors. Crucially, we independently varied the number of target colors that observers anticipated, and the number of target colors actually used to distinguish the targets in the display. This enabled us to dissociate the preparation of selection mechanisms from the actual engagement of such mechanisms. Multivariate classification of electroencephalographic activity allowed us to track selection of each target separately across time. The results revealed only small neural and behavioral costs associated with preparing for selecting two objects, but substantial costs when engaging in selection. Further analyses suggest this cost is the consequence of neural competition resulting in limited parallel processing, rather than a serial bottleneck. The findings bridge diverging theoretical perspectives on capacity limitations of feature-based attention.

Data availability

All data and material will be made freely accessible at https://osf.io/3bn64.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Eduard Ort

    Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    eduardxort@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5546-3561
  2. Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort

    Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9025-3436
  3. Tuomas ten Cate

    Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Martin Eimer

    Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Christian N L Olivers

    Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7470-5378

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (464-13-003)

  • Christian N L Olivers

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-2013-CoG-615423)

  • Christian N L Olivers

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants gave written informed consent in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Scientific and Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Reference number: VCWE-2016-215).

Copyright

© 2019, Ort et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,786
    views
  • 287
    downloads
  • 26
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Eduard Ort
  2. Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort
  3. Tuomas ten Cate
  4. Martin Eimer
  5. Christian N L Olivers
(2019)
Humans can efficiently look for but not select multiple visual objects
eLife 8:e49130.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49130

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49130

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Ayni Sharif, Matthew S Jeffers ... Manoj M Lalu
    Research Article

    C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists may improve both acute stroke outcome and long-term recovery. Despite their evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. With a panel of patients with lived experiences of stroke, we performed a systematic review of animal models of stroke that administered a CCR5 antagonist and assessed infarct size or behavioural outcomes. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool and alignment with the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) and Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations. Five studies representing 10 experiments were included. CCR5 antagonists reduced infarct volume (standard mean difference −1.02; 95% confidence interval −1.58 to −0.46) when compared to stroke-only controls. Varied timing of CCR5 administration (pre- or post-stroke induction) produced similar benefit. CCR5 antagonists significantly improved 11 of 16 behavioural outcomes reported. High risk of bias was present in all studies and critical knowledge gaps in the preclinical evidence were identified using STAIR/SRRR. CCR5 antagonists demonstrate promise; however, rigorously designed preclinical studies that better align with STAIR/SRRR recommendations and downstream clinical trials are warranted. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023393438).

    1. Neuroscience
    Yisi Liu, Pu Wang ... Hongwei Zhou
    Short Report

    The increasing use of tissue clearing techniques underscores the urgent need for cost-effective and simplified deep imaging methods. While traditional inverted confocal microscopes excel in high-resolution imaging of tissue sections and cultured cells, they face limitations in deep imaging of cleared tissues due to refractive index mismatches between the immersion media of objectives and sample container. To overcome these challenges, the RIM-Deep was developed to significantly improve deep imaging capabilities without compromising the normal function of the confocal microscope. This system facilitates deep immunofluorescence imaging of the prefrontal cortex in cleared macaque tissue, extending imaging depth from 2 mm to 5 mm. Applied to an intact and cleared Thy1-EGFP mouse brain, the system allowed for clear axonal visualization at high imaging depth. Moreover, this advancement enables large-scale, deep 3D imaging of intact tissues. In principle, this concept can be extended to any imaging modality, including existing inverted wide-field, confocal, and two-photon microscopy. This would significantly upgrade traditional laboratory configurations and facilitate the study of connectomes in the brain and other tissues.