Fine-tuning exogenous attention within the foveola.

(A) Fine-tuning of exogenous attention within the foveola occurs, for example, when we are looking at a distant traffic light—occupying less than 1° of our visual field—that suddenly turns green, capturing our attention and prompting us to move forward. As a result of the fine-tuning of exogenous attention, contrast sensitivity could be enhanced for a narrow range of spatial frequencies, centered around lower spatial frequencies (blue) or higher spatial frequencies (green) (B). On the other hand, contrast sensitivity may be enhanced uniformly across a wide range of spatial frequencies (C).

Experimental protocol.

(A) Trials started with a fixation marker at the center of the monitor. Observers were instructed to maintain fixation at the center throughout the trial. After a brief flash of the exogenous cue to capture observers’ attention, two Gabor patches independently tilted (±45°) were briefly displayed, one on each side of the fixation marker. At the end of the trial, a response cue appeared, and observers had to report the orientation of the stimulus that was previously presented at the cued location. In valid trials, the exogenous cue and response cue indicated the same spatial location. In neutral trials, no exogenous cue was presented. Valid and neutral trials had the same probability of occurrence. (B) Size of the stimuli. The Gabor patches had a Gaussian window of 5.4′ standard deviation, creating a 30′ x 30′ visible region. (C) Stimuli used in the experiment. Gabor patch of all spatial frequencies tested from 4 to 20 cycles per degree (CPD). (D) 68% contour of the gaze probability distribution in valid and neutral conditions during Gabor presentation. Color represents individual observers. Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Number and proportion of trials included in the analysis after filtering. Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Average saccade onset relative to response cue onset.

Effect of fine-grained exogenous attention on contrast sensitivity.

(A) Psychometric functions illustrating example observers’ discrimination accuracy for Gabor patches with spatial frequencies of 4, 8, 12, and 20 cycles per degree (CPD). The size of each dot corresponds to the number of trials included at a specific contrast value. Vertical lines indicate contrast thresholds, while horizontal lines represent the accuracy level midway between chance performance and maximum performance. (B) Average contrast sensitivity, calculated as the inverse of the contrast threshold, across spatial frequencies in valid and neutral conditions. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean (SEM). Asterisks mark a significant difference in contrast sensitivity between pairs of spatial frequencies. (C) Average contrast sensitivity in neutral condition against that in valid condition at each spatial frequency. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars indicate the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. (D) Average difference in log-scaled contrast sensitivity between valid and neutral conditions across different spatial frequencies. Each line corresponds to the log-scaled contrast sensitivities from each observer. Error bars represent the bootstrapped confidence intervals. Asterisks mark post-hoc pairwise comparison results between valid and neutral conditions within each spatial frequency. Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Psychometric functions for all observers in all conditions. Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Contrast sensitivity results including 2 CPD. Figure 3—figure supplement 3. Relation between mean and variability of contrast sensitivity (CS). Figure 3—figure supplement 4. Attention benefit plotted as ratio of contrast sensitivity between valid and neutral trials.

Effect of fine-grained exogenous attention on asymptotic performance.

(A) Average asymptotic performance, defined as discrimination accuracy at maximum contrast, pooled across spatial frequencies in valid and neutral conditions. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean (SEM). (B) Average asymptotic performance across spatial frequencies in valid and neutral conditions. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean (SEM). Asterisks mark a significant difference in asymptotic performance between pairs of spatial frequencies. (C) Average asymptotic performance in the neutral condition against that in the valid condition at each spatial frequency. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars indicate the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. (D) Average difference in asymptotic performance between valid and neutral conditions across different spatial frequencies. Each line corresponds to an individual observer. Error bars indicate the bootstrapped confidence intervals. Asterisks mark post-hoc pairwise comparison results between valid and neutral conditions within each spatial frequency. Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates (points) and 95% confidence intervals for contrast sensitivity (CS) and asymptotic performance (AP).

Average number and percentage of trials retained for analysis after filtering (mean ± SE across observers) across different spatial frequencies and cueing conditions.

Brackets indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Observers who were unable to perform the task at 20 CPD were excluded from the 20 CPD trial counts.

Linear mixed-effects model predicting log-transformed contrast sensitivity from attention, spatial frequency, and their interaction.

Simple effects of attention on contrast sensitivity at each spatial frequency (SF) and their effect sizes in Cohen’s d.

Interaction contrasts comparing attention effects between spatial frequency (SF) pairs and their effect sizes in Cohen’s d.

Generalized linear mixed-effects model predicting normalized asymptotic performance from attention, spatial frequency, and their interaction.

Simple effects of attention on asymptotic performance at each spatial frequency (SF) and their effect sizes in Cohen’s d.

Interaction contrasts comparing attention effects between spatial frequency (SF) pairs on asymptotic performance and their effect sizes in Cohen’s d.

Number of trials included for analysis by condition.

Each line is an observer. Error bars show the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals.

Average saccades onset relative to the response cue onset in valid and neutral conditions (valid vs. neutral: p < 0.01).

Only saccades that occurred after fixation period were included in the analysis. The trials presented here were not included in main analyses examining the effects of attention. Lines represent individual observers. Error bars mark group SEM.

Psychometric Weibull function fits for all observers and conditions.

(A) Average contrast sensitivity, calculated as the inverse of the contrast threshold, across spatial frequencies, including 2 CPD in valid and neutral conditions. Each dot represents an individual observer. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean (SEM). Asterisks mark a significant difference in contrast sensitivity between 2 CPD and other spatial frequencies. (B) Average difference in log-scaled contrast sensitivity between valid and neutral conditions across different spatial frequencies. Each line corresponds to the log-scaled contrast sensitivities from each observer. Error bars represent the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Asterisks mark post-hoc pairwise comparison results between valid and neutral conditions within each spatial frequency (p = 0.04 for valid vs. neutral at 2 CPD; ps > 0.17 for mean gain at 2 CPD vs. other SFs).

Relation between mean and variability of contrast sensitivity (CS), depending on whether CS is log-transformed (right panel) or not (left panel).

Without a log-transform, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of CS are almost perfectly correlated, constituting a strong violation of the homoskedasticity assumption of linear models. For the present data, log-transforming CS mostly removes this correlation (except for the 20 CPD condition).

Average attentional benefit calculated as the ratio in contrast sensitivity between valid and neutral conditions.

Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates (points) and 95% confidence intervals for contrast sensitivity (CS) and asymptotic performance (AP) for each experimental condition across seven observers.

Both CS and AP were transformed in the same way as used in our mixed-effects analyses.