Letter | Published:

Electrophysiological measurement of rapid shifts of attention during visual search

Nature volume 400, pages 867869 (26 August 1999) | Download Citation



The perception of natural visual scenes that contain many objects poses computational problems that are absent when objects are perceived in isolation1. Vision researchers have captured this attribute of real-world perception in the laboratory by using visual search tasks, in which subjects search for a target object in arrays containing varying numbers of non-target distractor objects. Under many conditions, the amount of time required to detect a visual search target increases as the number of objects in the stimulus array increases, and some investigators have proposed that this reflects the serial application of attention to the individual objects in the array2,3. However, other investigators have argued that this pattern of results may instead be due to limitations in the processing capacity of a parallel processing system that identifies multiple objects concurrently4,5. Here we attempt to address this longstanding controversy by using an electrophysiological marker of the moment-by-moment direction of attention — the N2pc component of the event-related potential waveform — to show that attention shifts rapidly among objects during visual search.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    The Perception of Multiple Objects (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991).

  2. 2.

    Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 40, 201–237 (1988).

  3. 3.

    Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 1, 202–238 (1994).

  4. 4.

    Atheory of visual attention. Psychol. Rev. 97, 523–547 (1990).

  5. 5.

    , & Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature 369, 313–315 (1994).

  6. 6.

    & Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology 31, 291–308 (1994).

  7. 7.

    & Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 20, 1000–1014 (1994).

  8. 8.

    , , & Bridging the gap between monkey neurophysiology and human perception: An ambiguity resolution theory of visual selective attention. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 64–87 (1997).

  9. 9.

    What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychol. Sci. 9, 33–39 (1998).

  10. 10.

    & Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 62, 203–208 (1985).

  11. 11.

    , , & The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Percept. Psychophys. 57, 1241–1261 (1995).

  12. 12.

    , & Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Percept. Psychophys. 60, 140–156 (1998).

  13. 13.

    Serial vs. parallel processing. Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychol. Sci. 1, 46–54 (1990).

Download references


This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Science Foundation and the Human Frontier Science Program.

Author information


  1. Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1407, USA

    • Geoffrey F. Woodman
    •  & Steven J. Luck


  1. Search for Geoffrey F. Woodman in:

  2. Search for Steven J. Luck in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Luck.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.