Development of Split Foci of Attention

• In Event: Poster Session 04
  In Poster Session: PS 04 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

Children can successfully track multiple moving targets among distractors simultaneously (Blankenship, Strong, & Kibbe, 2019). The strategies they used to track these targets, however, are unknown. Adults can successfully split their attention between two locations without attending to the intervening space, consistent with multiple foci of attention (Awh & Pashler, 2000). To address whether children also can split their attention across multiple locations, we adapted an adult spatial attention task for use with 6- and 8-year-old children, and adults.

In Experiment 1, 52 children [27 6-year-olds (M=6.42, SD=.29, 13 female), 25 8-year-olds (M=8.47, SD =.28, 11 female)], and 19 adults (M=31.6, SD=9.34; 12 female) completed a computerized attention task (Figure 1). The task was presented as a game, where the goal was to feed a cartoon monster (“Number Cruncher”) its favorite number. On each trial, participants viewed 6 black masks (750 ms), two of which were cued (750 ms); the cued masks were always separated by one uncued mask. The masks were then replaced by an array of characters (250 ms), two of which were numbers. The characters were then masked again (100 ms), and one of the masks was probed. Participants reported the number that had appeared at the probed location. On 16 trials, one of the two cued locations was probed (valid single), while on 10 trials, both cued locations were probed (valid double). On the remaining 4 trials, an uncued location was probed (invalid); for invalid trials, the probed location was either positioned between the two cued locations or outside of the cued locations. If children split their attention between the two cued locations during the task, performance should be better for valid trials than for invalid trials, even when probes fall immediately between cued locations.

We observed a main effect of probe location, F(1.76, 119.76) = 109.38, p<.001, with participants performing significantly better on valid (M=.69, SD=.02) than invalid trials, both when the location was between (M=.19, SD=.03) and outside (M=.14, SD=.03) the cued locations, consistent with splitting attention between noncontiguous locations. There was also a main effect of age, F(2, 68) = 14.73, p<.001, with adults (M=.44, SD=.03) outperforming 6- (M=.25, SD=.02) and 8-year-olds (M=.34, SD=.02), and 8-year-olds outperforming 6-year-olds (ps<.05). Follow-up analyses on double valid trials ruled out a single focal strategy for 8-year-olds (p<.001) and adults (p<.001), but not for 6-year-olds (p=.09).

In Experiment 2, a separate sample of 24 6-year-olds (M=6.36, SD=.31, 10 female) completed a similar attention task. The only difference was that valid double probe trials were replaced with trials where a single location was cued and probed (single valid). Individual performance on single valid trials was used to investigate potential single focal strategies. We replicated our previous findings: 6-year-olds’ performance on valid trials was not significantly above what would be obtained using a single focal strategy (p=.18).

Our results provide the first evidence that children can split, rather than spread, their attention between two locations, but that this ability likely emerges between the ages of 6 and 8 years.

Authors

• Tashauna Blankenship, University of Massachusetts Boston
  Presenting Author

• Roger W. Strong, Harvard University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Melissa M. Kibbe, Boston University
  Non-Presenting Author