Covert vs. Overt Spatial Attention Effects on Scene Comprehension.
Poster Presentation 36.463: Sunday, May 17, 2026, 2:45 – 6:45 pm, Pavilion
Session: Attention: Spatial
Schedule of Events | Search Abstracts | Symposia | Talk Sessions | Poster Sessions
There is a Poster PDF for this presentation, but you must be a current member or registered to attend VSS 2026 to view it.
Please go to your Account Home page to register.
Sana Shehabi1, Srijita Karmakar1, Miguel P. Eckstein1; 1University of California, Santa Barbara
Introduction: Covert and overt attention improve performance in a variety of basic perceptual tasks: detection, contrast and orientation discrimination, letter identification, and scene categorization (Posner, 1980; Carrasco, 2011). Scene understanding is crucial for everyday visual cognition, but we know little about how attention influences the human ability to comprehend scenes. Here, we assess whether covert and overt attention enhance real-world scene comprehension. Methods: In Experiment 1 (covert attention; N=19), observers completed a modified Posner task under enforced fixation. Ninety percent of randomly sampled trials followed a standard 2-location Gabor orientation-identification (± 5 deg) paradigm (80% valid, 20% invalid peripheral precues, Gabor presentation: 50 ms). The remaining 10% were “scene trials,” where Gabors were replaced with real-world images (300 ms) containing individuals performing distinct actions on each side. A response cue (250 ms) indicated which side’s scene observers should describe (50% response cue validity relative to the precue). Semantic similarity index (SSI) between observers’ descriptions and gold-standard descriptions was quantified using cosine similarity computed from text embeddings. Experiment 2 (overt attention; N=10) used the same design, except observers were free to move their eyes. Results: Both experiments showed significant and comparable cueing effects for Gabor trials (p = 0.90, covert vs. overt). Critically, covert attention did not enhance scene comprehension: SSI did not differ (bootstrap p = .060) between valid (0.609 ± 0.014) and invalid (0.579 ± 0.012) cued scenes. In contrast, overt attention resulted in a strong cueing effect on scene comprehension: SSI were higher for valid (0.662 ± 0.012) than invalid (0.438 ± 0.026) cued scenes (bootstrap p < .001). Conclusion: While covert attention produces benefits for basic perceptual tasks, its influence on the comprehension of real-world scenes is small and less than ~1/8th, relative to overt attention.