Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (11): 1829-1843.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01829
• Regular Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2024-02-28
Online:
2024-11-15
Published:
2024-09-05
Contact:
ZHANG Xiangyi
E-mail:xiangyizhang@hunnu.edu.cn
CLC Number:
ZHANG Xiangyi, WU Yilin. The impact of visual attention on decision-making and its mechanisms[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(11): 1829-1843.
理论模型 | 基本逻辑 | 局限性 |
---|---|---|
简单暴露效应 | 视觉注意→喜欢→决策 | 接触与喜好之间的内在关系尚不明确 |
注视层叠假说 | 视觉注意←→偏好→决策 | 缺乏数学模型表达, 无法解释某些关键问题(如决策阈值的本质、注意与决策偏好如何相互影响等), 注视层叠的内在机理仍尚不明晰 |
序列抽样模型 | DDM:初始偏好→证据积累→决策 | 没有纳入任何注意的量化指标, 适用于简单快速的决策而较难准确描述复杂的决策偏好 |
aDDM:视觉注意→增加选项主观价值→证据累积率变化→决策 | 部分假设与相关实证研究结果相悖, 主要关注外显注意而忽视了内隐注意对决策的影响 | |
自适应注意表征模型 | 视觉注意→积累类别证据→习得表征→反馈→调整视觉注意→决策 | 对视觉注意如何分配到各具体维度的解释力度不够, 在人类学习上的研究稍显不足 |
理论模型 | 基本逻辑 | 局限性 |
---|---|---|
简单暴露效应 | 视觉注意→喜欢→决策 | 接触与喜好之间的内在关系尚不明确 |
注视层叠假说 | 视觉注意←→偏好→决策 | 缺乏数学模型表达, 无法解释某些关键问题(如决策阈值的本质、注意与决策偏好如何相互影响等), 注视层叠的内在机理仍尚不明晰 |
序列抽样模型 | DDM:初始偏好→证据积累→决策 | 没有纳入任何注意的量化指标, 适用于简单快速的决策而较难准确描述复杂的决策偏好 |
aDDM:视觉注意→增加选项主观价值→证据累积率变化→决策 | 部分假设与相关实证研究结果相悖, 主要关注外显注意而忽视了内隐注意对决策的影响 | |
自适应注意表征模型 | 视觉注意→积累类别证据→习得表征→反馈→调整视觉注意→决策 | 对视觉注意如何分配到各具体维度的解释力度不够, 在人类学习上的研究稍显不足 |
[1] |
陈诗婷, 杨文登. (2023). 嗅觉影响社会判断与决策的作用与机制. 心理科学进展, 31(10), 1899-1911.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01899 |
[2] |
黄元娜, 江程铭, 刘洪志, 李纾. (2023). 风险、跨期和空间决策的决策策略共享:眼动和主观判断的证据. 心理学报, 55(6), 994-1015.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00994 |
[3] |
刘洪志, 李兴珊, 李纾, 饶俪琳. (2022). 基于期望值最大化的理论何时失效:风险决策中为自己-为所有人决策差异的眼动研究. 心理学报, 54(12), 1517-1531.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01517 |
[4] |
刘洪志, 杨钘兰, 李秋月, 魏子晗. (2023). 跨期决策中的维度差异偏好:眼动证据. 心理学报, 55(4), 612-625.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00612 |
[5] |
Amasino, D. R., Sullivan, N. J., Kranton, R. E., & Huettel, S. A. (2019). Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(4), 383-392.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0537-2 pmid: 30971787 |
[6] |
Anders, R., Van Maanen, L., & Alario, F.-X. (2019). Multi- factor analysis in language production: Sequential sampling models mimic and extend regression results. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 36(5-6), 234-264.
doi: 10.1080/02643294.2019.1610371 pmid: 31076011 |
[7] | Bhatnagar, R., & Orquin, J. L. (2022). A meta-analysis on the effect of visual attention on choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(10), 2265-2283. |
[8] | Bigné, E., Ruiz-Mafé, C., & Badenes-Rocha, A. (2023). The influence of negative emotions on brand trust and intention to share cause-related posts: A neuroscientific study. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113628. |
[9] |
Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 545-552.
pmid: 1447685 |
[10] | Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 746-756. |
[11] | Brüns, J. D., & Meissner, M. (2023). Show me that you are advertising: Visual salience of products attenuates detrimental effects of persuasion knowledge activation in influencer advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107891. |
[12] | Callaway, F., Rangel, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling. Plos Computational Biology, 17(3), e1008863. |
[13] |
Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484-1525.
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012 pmid: 21549742 |
[14] |
Carrasco, M., & Barbot, A. (2019). Spatial attention alters visual appearance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 56-64.
doi: S2352-250X(18)30191-X pmid: 30572280 |
[15] | Castagna, P. J., van Noordt, S., Sederberg, P. B., & Crowley, M. J. (2023). Modeling brain dynamics and gaze behavior: Starting point bias and drift rate relate to frontal midline theta oscillations. NeuroImage, 268, 119871. |
[16] | Cavanagh, J. F., Wiecki, T. V., Kochar, A., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1476-1488. |
[17] |
Cavanagh, S. E., Malalasekera, W. M. N., Miranda, B., Hunt, L. T., & Kennerley, S. W. (2019). Visual fixation patterns during economic choice reflect covert valuation processes that emerge with learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(45), 22795-22801.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1906662116 pmid: 31636178 |
[18] |
Chang, S., & Egeth, H. E. (2019). Enhancement and suppression flexibly guide attention. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1724-1732.
doi: 10.1177/0956797619878813 pmid: 31693453 |
[19] |
Chang, S. H., Dube, B., Golomb, J. D., & Leber, A. B. (2023). Learned spatial suppression is not always proactive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(7), 1031-1041.
doi: 10.1037/xhp0001133 pmid: 37199949 |
[20] | Chapman, A. F., Chunharas, C., & Störmer, V. (2023). Feature-based attention warps the perception of visual features. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6487. |
[21] |
Cheadle, S., Wyart, V., Tsetsos, K., Myers, N., de Gardelle, V., Castanon, S. H., & Summerfield, C. (2014). Adaptive gain control during human perceptual choice. Neuron, 81(6), 1429-1441.
doi: S0896-6273(14)00051-8 pmid: 24656259 |
[22] | Chen, X. W., Xu, B., Chen, Y. Z., Zeng, X. Q., Zhang, Y., & Fu, S. M. (2023). Saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of abrupt-onset and color singleton distractors: Evidence from event-related potential studies. Psychophysiology, 60(8), e14290. |
[23] |
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73-101.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427 pmid: 19575619 |
[24] |
De Freitas, J., & Alvarez, G. A. (2018). Your visual system provides all the information you need to make moral judgments about generic visual events. Cognition, 178, 133-146.
doi: S0010-0277(18)30143-4 pmid: 29852427 |
[25] | Effron, D. A. (2022). The moral repetition effect: Bad deeds seem less unethical when repeatedly encountered. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(10), 2562-2585. |
[26] | Eum, B., Dolbier, S., & Rangel, A. (2023). Peripheral visual information halves attentional choice biases. Psychological Science, 34(9), 984-998. |
[27] | Evans, N. J., Holmes, W. R., Dasari, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2021). The impact of presentation order on attraction and repulsion effects in decision-making. Decision, 8(1), 36-54. |
[28] | Fisher, G. (2021). Intertemporal choices are causally influenced by fluctuations in visual attention. Management Science, 67(8), 4961-4981. |
[29] | Fontanesi, L., Gluth, S., Spektor, M. S., & Rieskamp, J. (2019). A reinforcement learning diffusion decision model for value-based decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1099-1121. |
[30] | Galdo, M., Weichart, E. R., Sloutsky, V. M., & Turner, B. M. (2022). The quest for simplicity in human learning: Identifying the constraints on attention. Cognitive Psychology, 138, 101508. |
[31] | Gehrer, N. A., Zajenkowska, A., Bodecka, M., & Schönenberg, M. (2021). Attention orienting to the eyes in violent female and male offenders: An eye-tracking study. Biological Psychology, 163, 108136. |
[32] |
Ghaffari, M., & Fiedler, S. (2018). The power of attention: Using eye gaze to predict other-regarding and moral choices. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1878-1889.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618799301 pmid: 30295569 |
[33] | Glickman, M., & Usher, M. (2019). Integration to boundary in decisions between numerical sequences. Cognition, 193, 104022. |
[34] |
Gluth, S., Hotaling, J. M., & Rieskamp, J. (2017). The attraction effect modulates reward prediction errors and intertemporal choices. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(2), 371-382.
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2532-16.2016 pmid: 28077716 |
[35] |
Gluth, S., Kern, N., Kortmann, M., & Vitali, C. L. (2020). Value-based attention but not divisive normalization influences decisions with multiple alternatives. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 634-645.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0822-0 pmid: 32015490 |
[36] | Gluth, S., Spektor, M. S., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making. eLife, 7, e39659. |
[37] |
Gwinn, R., Leber, A. B., & Krajbich, I. (2019). The spillover effects of attentional learning on value-based choice. Cognition, 182, 294-306.
doi: S0010-0277(18)30270-1 pmid: 30391643 |
[38] | Hamblin-Frohman, Z., Chang, S., Egeth, H., & Becker, S. I. (2022). Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 84(6), 1913-1924. |
[39] | He, L. S., Wall, D., Reeck, C., & Bhatia, S. (2023). Information acquisition and decision strategies in intertemporal choice. Cognitive Psychology, 142, 101562. |
[40] | Hedger, N., & Chakrabarti, B. (2021). Autistic differences in the temporal dynamics of social attention. Autism, 25(6), 1615-1626. |
[41] | Heffernan, E. M., Adema, J. D., & Mack, M. L. (2021). Identifying the neural dynamics of category decisions with computational model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(5), 1638-1647. |
[42] | Hirmas, A., & Engelmann, J. B. (2023). Impulsiveness moderates the effects of exogenous attention on the sensitivity to gains and losses in risky lotteries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 95, 102600. |
[43] | Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. |
[44] |
Ito, T., Wu, D. A., Marutani, T., Yamamoto, M., Suzuki, H., Shimojo, S., & Matsuda, T. (2014). Changing the mind? Not really-activity and connectivity in the caudate correlates with changes of choice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(10), 1546-1551.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nst147 pmid: 24036963 |
[45] | Jangard, S., Lindström, B., Khemiri, L., Pärnamets, P., Jayaram-Lindström, N., & Olsson, A. (2022). Alcohol use disorder displays trait-related reductions in prosocial decision making. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 7(9), 925-934. |
[46] | Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2022). A self-supervised domain-general learning framework for human ventral stream representation. Nature Communications, 13(1), 491. |
[47] |
Krajbich, I. (2019). Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 6-11.
doi: S2352-250X(18)30186-6 pmid: 30368108 |
[48] |
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292-1298.
doi: 10.1038/nn.2635 pmid: 20835253 |
[49] | Krajbich, I., Mitsumasu, A., Polania, R., Ruff, C. C., & Fehr, E. (2021). A causal role for the right frontal eye fields in value comparison. eLife, 10, e67477. |
[50] | Lee, D. G., & Usher, M. (2023). Value certainty in drift-diffusion models of preferential choice. Psychological Review, 130(3), 790-806. |
[51] | Liao, J. J., Chen, Y. J., Lin, W. J., & Mo, L. (2021). The influence of distance between decoy and target on context effect: Attraction or repulsion? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 432-447. |
[52] | Liu, H. Z., Lyu, X. K., Wei, Z. H., Mo, W. L., Luo, J. R., & Su, X. Y. (2020). Exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze to bias intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 419-431. |
[53] | Liu, H. Z., Zhou, Y. B., Wei, Z. H., & Jiang, C. M. (2020). The power of last fixation: Biasing simple choices by gaze-contingent manipulation. Acta Psychologica, 208, 103106. |
[54] | Marini, M., Ansani, A., & Paglieri, F. (2020). Attraction comes from many sources: Attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(5), 704-726. |
[55] | Martinovici, A., Pieters, R., & Erdem, T. (2023). Attention trajectories capture utility accumulation and predict brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(4), 625-645. |
[56] | McColeman, C., Barnes, J., Chen, L., Meier, K., Walshe, R., & Blair, M. (2014). Learning-induced changes in attentional allocation during categorization: A sizable catalog of attention change as measured by eye movements. PloS One, 9(1), e83302. |
[57] |
Mohn, J. L., Downer, J. D., O'Connor, K. N., Johnson, J. S., & Sutter, M. L. (2021). Choice-related activity and neural encoding in primary auditory cortex and lateral belt during feature selective attention. Journal of Neurophysiology. 125(5), 1920-1937.
doi: 10.1152/jn.00406.2020 pmid: 33788616 |
[58] | Molter, F., Thomas, A. W., Huettel, S. A., Heekeren, H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2022). Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour. PLoS Computational Biology, 18(7), e1010283. |
[59] |
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459-498.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000085 pmid: 28263645 |
[60] |
Mormann, M., & Russo, J. E. (2021). Does attention increase the value of choice alternatives? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(4), 305-315.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.01.004 pmid: 33549495 |
[61] | Newell, B. R., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2018). Perceptual but not complex moral judgments can be biased by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(3), 409-417. |
[62] | Nguyen, Q. N., & Reinagel, P. (2022). Different forms of variability could explain a difference between human and rat decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16, 794681. |
[63] | Nosofsky, R. M., & Hu, M. J. (2023). Category structure and region-specific selective attention. Memory & Cognition, 51(4), 915-929. |
[64] | Nuiten, S. A., De Gee, J. W., Zantvoord, J. B., Fahrenfort, J. J., & van Gaal, S. (2023). Catecholaminergic neuromodulation and selective attention jointly shape perceptual decision- making. eLife, 12, RP87022. |
[65] | O’Connell, R. G., & Kelly, S. P. (2021). Neurophysiology of human perceptual decision-making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 44(1), 495-516. |
[66] | Omyan, S., Mazidi, M., & Khatibi, A. (2023). Selective attention to pain and empathy: Studying frequent blood donors. Brain and Behavior, 13(1), e2841. |
[67] |
Orquin, J. L., Lahm, E. S., & Stojić, H. (2021). The visual environment and attention in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 597-617.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000328 pmid: 34843300 |
[68] | Palacios-Ibáñez, A., Marín-Morales, J., Contero, M., & Alcañiz, M. (2023). Predicting decision-making in virtual environments: An eye movement analysis with household products. Applied Sciences, 13(12), 7124. |
[69] |
Pärnamets, P., Johansson, P., Hall, L., Balkenius, C., Spivey, M. J., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(13), 4170-4175.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415250112 pmid: 25775604 |
[70] | Perkovic, S., Schoemann, M., Lagerkvist, C. J., & Orquin, J. L. (2023). Covert attention leads to fast and accurate decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(1), 78-94. |
[71] | Pleskac, T. J., Yu, S. L., Grunevski, S., & Liu, T. S. (2023). Attention biases preferential choice by enhancing an option's value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 993-1010. |
[72] | Rangelov, D., & Mattingley, J. B. (2020). Evidence accumulation during perceptual decision-making is sensitive to the dynamics of attentional selection. NeuroImage, 220, 117093. |
[73] | Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59-108. |
[74] |
Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333-367.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333 pmid: 15065913 |
[75] | Rhilinger, J. P., Xu, C. L. X., & Rose, N. S. (2023). Are irrelevant items actively deleted from visual working memory?: No evidence from repulsion and attraction effects in dual-retrocue tasks. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 85(5), 1499-1516. |
[76] | Rich, A. S., & Gureckis, T. M. (2018). The limits of learning: Exploration, generalization, and the development of learning traps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1553-1570. |
[77] |
Roberts, I. D., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2019). Affect and decision making: Insights and predictions from computational models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 602-614.
doi: S1364-6613(19)30097-X pmid: 31104816 |
[78] | Roberts, I. D., Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2022). Time to pay attention? Information search explains amplified framing effects under time pressure. Psychological Science, 33(1), 90-104. |
[79] | Rose, L., Kovarski, K., Caetta, F., Makowski, D., & Chokron, S. (2024). Beyond empathy: Cognitive capabilities increase or curb altruism in middle childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 239, 105810. |
[80] | Rosner, A., Schaffner, M., & von Helversen, B. (2022). When the eyes have it and when not: How multiple sources of activation combine to guide eye movements during multiattribute decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(6), 1394-1418. |
[81] | Saito, T., Motoki, K., Nouchi, R., & Sugiura, M. (2023). Facilitating animacy perception by manipulating stimuli exposure time. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1017685. |
[82] | Sharma, S. N., & Khan, A. (2022). Self-other differences in intertemporal decision making: An eye-tracking investigation. Consciousness and Cognition, 102, 103356. |
[83] | Shevlin, B. R. K., & Krajbich, I. (2021). Attention as a source of variability in decision-making: Accounting for overall-value effects with diffusion models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 105, 102594. |
[84] | Shevlin, B. R. K., Smith, S. M., Hausfeld, J., & Krajbich, I. (2022). High-value decisions are fast and accurate, inconsistent with diminishing value sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(6), e2101508119. |
[85] |
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1317-1322.
pmid: 14608360 |
[86] | Smith, P. L., & Lilburn, S. D. (2020). Vision for the blind: Visual psychophysics and blinded inference for decision models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 882-910. |
[87] | Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Attention and choice across domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1810-1826. |
[88] |
Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. (2019). Gaze amplifies value in decision making. Psychological Science, 30(1), 116-128.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618810521 pmid: 30526339 |
[89] | Spektor, M. S., Bhatia, S., & Gluth, S. (2021). The elusiveness of context effects in decision making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(10), 844-857. |
[90] |
Spektor, M. S., Kellen, D., & Hotaling, J. M. (2018). When the good looks bad: An experimental exploration of the repulsion effect. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1309-1320.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618779041 pmid: 29792774 |
[91] | Spektor, M. S., Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2022). The repulsion effect in preferential choice and its relation to perceptual choice. Cognition, 225, 105164. |
[92] |
Spering, M. (2022). Eye movements as a window into decision-making. Annual Review of Vision Science, 8, 427-448.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-vision-100720-125029 pmid: 35676097 |
[93] | Stephensen, M. B., Schulze, C., Landro, M., Hendrikx, J., & Hetland, A. (2021). Should I judge safety or danger? Perceived risk depends on the question frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(3), 485-502. |
[94] |
Stojić, H., Orquin, J. L., Dayan, P., Dolan, R. J., & Speekenbrink, M. (2020). Uncertainty in learning, choice, and visual fixation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(6), 3291-3300.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1911348117 pmid: 31980535 |
[95] |
Sullivan, N. J., & Huettel, S. A. (2021). Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1698-1706.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01154-0 pmid: 34226708 |
[96] | Teigen, K. H. (2023). Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges. Current Psychology, 42(33), 29122-29137. |
[97] | Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2022). The games we play: Prosocial choices under time pressure reflect context- sensitive information priorities. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1541-1556. |
[98] | Teoh, Y. Y., Yao, Z., Cunningham, W. A., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2020). Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3534. |
[99] |
Thomas, A. W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I., Heekeren, H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2019). Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 625-635.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8 pmid: 30988476 |
[100] | Tsai, S. Y., Nasemann, J., Qiu, N., Töllner, T., Müller, H. J., & Shi, Z. H. (2023). Little engagement of attention by salient distractors defined in a different dimension or modality to the visual search target. Psychophysiology, 60(12), e14375. |
[101] | van Moorselaar, D., Huang, C. R., & Theeuwes, J. (2023). Electrophysiological indices of distractor processing in visual search are shaped by target expectations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35(6), 1032-1044. |
[102] | Vanunu, Y., Hotaling, J. M., Le Pelley, M. E., & Newell, B. R. (2021). How top-down and bottom-up attention modulate risky choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(39), e2025646118. |
[103] | Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2020). Salience determines attentional orienting in visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(10), 1051-1057. |
[104] | Wedel, M., Pieters, R., & van der Lans, R. (2023). Modeling eye movements during decision making: A review. Psychometrika, 88(2), 697-729. |
[105] | Wei, Z.-H., Liang, Y., Liang, C.-J., & Liu, H.-Z. (2023). Information search processing affects social decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(5), e2352. |
[106] |
Weichart, E. R., Galdo, M., Sloutsky, V., & Turner, B. (2022). As within, so without, as above, so below: Common mechanisms can support between- and within-trial category learning dynamics. Psychological Review, 129(5), 1104-1143.
doi: 10.1037/rev0000381 pmid: 35849355 |
[107] | Weilbächer, R. A., Krajbich, I., Rieskamp, J., & Gluth, S. (2021). The influence of visual attention on memory-based preferential choice. Cognition, 215, 104804. |
[108] |
Westbrook, A., van den Bosch, R., Määttä, J. I., Hofmans, L., Papadopetraki, D., Cools, R., & Frank, M. J. (2020). Dopamine promotes cognitive effort by biasing the benefits versus costs of cognitive work. Science, 367(6484), 1362-1366.
doi: 10.1126/science.aaz5891 pmid: 32193325 |
[109] |
Wolf, A., Ounjai, K., Takahashi, M., Kobayashi, S., Matsuda, T., & Lauwereyns, J. (2019). Evaluative processing of food images: Longer viewing for indecisive preference formation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 608.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00608 pmid: 30949106 |
[110] | Wong, R. S. (2023). An experimental investigation of attribute framing effects on risky sourcing behaviour: The mediating role of attention allocated to suppliers' quality information. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(13), 205-225. |
[111] | Yang, X. Z., & Krajbich, I. (2023). A dynamic computational model of gaze and choice in multi-attribute decisions. Psychological Review, 130(1), 52-70. |
[112] | Yu, X., Johal, S. K., & Geng, J. J. (2022). Visual search guidance uses coarser template information than target- match decisions. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 84(5), 1432-1445. |
[113] | Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27. |
[114] | Zhou, X., Hao, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, Q. (2023). Statistical learning of target location and distractor location rely on different mechanisms during visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(2), 342-365. |
[115] | Zhou, Y.-B., Li, Q., & Liu, H.-Z. (2021). Visual attention and time preference reversals. Judgement and Decision Making, 16(4), 1010-1038. |
[116] | Zhu, T. Y. (2022). Accounting for the last-sampling bias in perceptual decision-making. Cognition, 223, 105049. |
[117] | Zilker, V. (2022). Stronger attentional biases can be linked to higher reward rate in preferential choice. Cognition, 225, 105095. |
[118] | Zilker, V., & Pachur, T. (2023). Attribute attention and option attention in risky choice. Cognition, 236, 105441. |
[1] | GUO Yanshuo, MA Xiaofeng, PAN Keyu, ZHANG Huan. The influence of rapid automatized naming on reading and its mechanism [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(6): 1020-1029. |
[2] | CHEN Shiting, YANG Wendeng. The effect of olfaction on social judgment and decision-making and its mechanism [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(10): 1899-1911. |
[3] | YE Liqun, TAN Xin, YAO Kun, DING Yulong. Influence of normal aging on early stages of visual attention: Evidence from ERP studies [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(12): 2746-2763. |
[4] | ZHANG Fan, CHEN Airui, DONG Bo, WANG Aijun, ZHANG Ming. Rapid disengagement hypothesis and signal suppression hypothesis of visual attentional capture [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(1): 45-55. |
[5] | Ke Xie, Xuejin Ni, Ling Li, Zhenlan Jin. Structural brain correlates of cueing effects in frontoparietal cortex [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(suppl.): 92-92. |
[6] | ZHAO Jing. Skills of visual attention span in developmental dyslexia [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 20-26. |
[7] | Hao Wang; Sheila Crewther; Minglong Liang; Robin Laycock; Tao Yu; Bonnie Alexander; David Crewther; Jian Wang; Zhengqin Yin. Impaired motion salience and disconnection of ipsilateral FEF from the attention network in strabismic amblyopia [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(Suppl.): 76-. |
[8] | SUN Long; CHANG Ruosong; GAO Yuan; MA Ling. Effect of Visual Attention on Hazard Detection and Its Influencing Mechanism [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(11): 1733-1739. |
[9] | ZHANG Bao;HUANG Sai. Mechanisms Underlying the Attentional Guidance form Working Memory Representations [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(9): 1578-1584. |
[10] | LI Hong-Ting;XU Wei-Dan;GE Lie-Zhong;LI Wen-Shu. Review of Research on the Visual Attention Model of Driver [J]. , 2010, 18(9): 1413-1419. |
[11] | PAN Yi. Content-based Working Memory-driven Visual Attention [J]. , 2010, 18(2): 210-219. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||