Dynamic Updates Based On Object Attention

The Dynamic-update hypothesis for object-based attention is a new area to explore. It states that on the dynamic aspect of the object which is selected by attention and showed that attention does not select a stable representation that cannot be improved once attention has been deployed to it. After the dynamic-update hypothesis was first proposed, it had been supported by some researchers. However, there is little research about how the dynamic updating occurs. Lin and Yeh (2012) tried to interpret how dynamic updating occurred in their experiment2. Their assumption was that the way how an object changed is the key to dynamic updating. They believed that object-based attention can only transient between the first and last displays smoothly, if there is any single disruption in the program of this smooth transition, it would be shut down. Continuous updating process could not tolerate even a single abrupt boundary change. Although, this idea was fit for their own study, it couldn’t interpret other studies of dynamic updating. For instance, in Ho’s (2009) work, the object was either disappeared or changed into another configure after cued, the object changed not smoothly, but they also found dynamic updating.The present study was aimed to find out the basis of the dynamic updating with tree experiments. In my three experiments, the two-rectangle cuing paradigm was applied as the main paradigm. Nevertheless, a tool which could probe the process of a new representation appeared, if this process really exist, was designed.In experiment1of present study, there were two conditions. One is that the object changed abruptly after been cued and the changed object is different from the original object. The dynamic updating was observed in this condition. The other is that the object changed abruptly after been cued and the changed object is same to the original object. The dynamic updating was not observed in this condition. More importantly, the RT (response time) of this two conditions were significantly different which suggested that the process of attention had a second spreading to the new representation. In total, the result of experiment1had provided the fact that the relationship between new representation and original representation would affect attention. When new representation was different from original representation, the latter one would disappeared and attention might spread secondly in the new representation, so the dynamic updating could not observed. The other hand, if the new representation was same to original representation, the latter one would be sustained and attention which just need to use the result of first spreading might not spread secondly in the new representation, so the dynamic updating could not detected.The experiment2successfully provided that the process of attention operating representation, no matter the object had changed or not, was exactly different. It suggested that even changed object is same to original object, attention would operate the changed representation. The results of experiment2clean up the alternative reason for experiment1.In experiment3, there was a tool which could probe the process of attention operating representation, it could not only clear up the disturbed factor in experiment2, but also could find out that the process of attention operating representation after been cued was really exist, even the changed object was same to original object.The result of present study shows, if one object has changed into another configure after it has been cued, attention will operate the new representation. The relationship between new representation and original representation is the key to whether attention spreads secondly in the new representation or keeps the result it firstly spreads. If attention spreads secondly, the dynamic updating occurs. If attention keeps the result it firstly spreads, the dynamic updating doesn’t occur. This is the reason that how an object be updated for the dynamic-updating hypothesis.