Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Mammography to tomosynthesis: examining the differences between two-dimensional and segmented-three-dimensional visual search.

Cognitive research: principles and implications·2018
Same author

Predicting Airport Screening Officers' Visual Search Competency With a Rapid Assessment.

Human factors·2017
Same author

The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads.

Behavior research methods·2017
Same author

Visual Search: You Are Who You Are (+ A Learning Curve).

Perception·2017
Same author

Attending globally or locally: Incidental learning of optimal visual attention allocation.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2017
Same author

Day-to-day variability in hybrid, passive brain-computer interfaces: comparing two studies assessing cognitive workload.

Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference·2017
Same journal

Low prevalence targets are primarily missed due to mind wandering.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same journal

Properties of the threshold stimulus exposure duration (TSED) measure of visual search efficiency.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same journal

Auditory selective attention in depth: Investigating directional dependency across front, lateral, and rear spaces.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same journal

Dissociations between stereoacuity and visual acuity with binocular night vision goggles.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same journal

Reward-based prioritization and perceptual feature effects on attentional flexibility in working memory.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same journal

Listeners near-optimally integrate acoustic and semantic cues in spoken word recognition: Evidence from experiments manipulating cue order and reliability.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 23, 2026

Utilizing vmTracking to Improve the Accuracy of Multi-Animal Pose Estimation in Rodent Social Behavior Studies
07:34

Utilizing vmTracking to Improve the Accuracy of Multi-Animal Pose Estimation in Rodent Social Behavior Studies

Published on: November 7, 2025

Reallocating attention during multiple object tracking.

Justin M Ericson1, James C Christensen

  • 1Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 2255 H Street B248, Dayton, OH 45433, USA. james.christensen@wpafb.af.mil

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
|April 6, 2012
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Multiple object tracking is not hindered by adding or removing targets. Performance is unaffected by cue types during target deselection, suggesting no attention shift costs.

More Related Videos

A Methodology for Capturing Joint Visual Attention Using Mobile Eye-Trackers
12:39

A Methodology for Capturing Joint Visual Attention Using Mobile Eye-Trackers

Published on: January 18, 2020

Long-term Video Tracking of Cohoused Aquatic Animals: A Case Study of the Daily Locomotor Activity of the Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)
05:57

Long-term Video Tracking of Cohoused Aquatic Animals: A Case Study of the Daily Locomotor Activity of the Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

Published on: April 8, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 23, 2026

Utilizing vmTracking to Improve the Accuracy of Multi-Animal Pose Estimation in Rodent Social Behavior Studies
07:34

Utilizing vmTracking to Improve the Accuracy of Multi-Animal Pose Estimation in Rodent Social Behavior Studies

Published on: November 7, 2025

A Methodology for Capturing Joint Visual Attention Using Mobile Eye-Trackers
12:39

A Methodology for Capturing Joint Visual Attention Using Mobile Eye-Trackers

Published on: January 18, 2020

Long-term Video Tracking of Cohoused Aquatic Animals: A Case Study of the Daily Locomotor Activity of the Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)
05:57

Long-term Video Tracking of Cohoused Aquatic Animals: A Case Study of the Daily Locomotor Activity of the Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

Published on: April 8, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Visual Attention
  • Multiple Object Tracking

Background:

  • Previous research on multiple object tracking (MOT) duration yielded conflicting results regarding target selection and deselection costs.
  • Some studies suggest minimal impact of target addition/removal on tracking duration, while others indicate costs, particularly with precuing paradigms.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the specific costs associated with adding and removing targets during MOT.
  • To differentiate between selection and deselection costs.
  • To examine the influence of cue types on target deselection and potential hysteresis effects.

Main Methods:

  • Participants performed a multiple object tracking task with separate conditions for target addition and removal.
  • A performance model was used to analyze costs related to target selection and deselection.
  • Experiments varied cue types for target deselection to assess their impact on performance.

Main Results:

  • No significant cost was found associated with shifting attention during target selection or deselection.
  • Different cue types for target deselection did not incur additional performance costs.
  • Hysteresis effects were not induced by a reduction in tracking load.

Conclusions:

  • The addition and removal of targets in MOT tasks do not inherently incur attentional costs.
  • Target deselection costs are independent of the cue type used.
  • MOT performance is robust to changes in tracking load and target management.