A view not to be missed: Salient scene content interferes with cognitive restoration
A view not to be missed: Salient scene content interferes with cognitive restoration
Alexander P. N. Van der Jagt 0 1 2
Tony Craig 0 2
Mark J. Brewer 0 2
David G. Pearson 0 2
0 Current address: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University , Utrecht , The Netherlands
1 University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen , United Kingdom, 2 The James Hutton Institute , Aberdeen , United Kingdom , 3 Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Aberdeen , United Kingdom, 4 Anglia Ruskin University , Cambridge , United Kingdom
2 Editor: Philip Allen, University of Akron , UNITED STATES
Attention Restoration Theory (ART) states that built scenes place greater load on attentional resources than natural scenes. This is explained in terms of "hard" and "soft" fascination of built and natural scenes. Given a lack of direct empirical evidence for this assumption we propose that perceptual saliency of scene content can function as an empirically derived indicator of fascination. Saliency levels were established by measuring speed of scene category detection using a Go/No-Go detection paradigm. Experiment 1 shows that built scenes are more salient than natural scenes. Experiment 2 replicates these findings using greyscale images, ruling out a colour-based response strategy, and additionally shows that built objects in natural scenes affect saliency to a greater extent than the reverse. Experiment 3 demonstrates that the saliency of scene content is directly linked to cognitive restoration using an established restoration paradigm. Overall, these findings demonstrate an important link between the saliency of scene content and related cognitive restoration.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
Funding: This research was partly funded by a
grant from ACES (Aberdeen Centre for
Environmental Sustainability) and by the Scottish
Government's Rural and Environment Science and
Analytical Services Division. The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation of the
There is widespread empirical support for the notion that exposure to natural environments is
cognitively restorative: aiding ªthe renewal or recovery of resources or capacities that have
become depleted in meeting the demands of everyday lifeº ([
], p. 42). For instance, a nature
visit has been shown to improve executive task performance more strongly than a visit to a
built environment [2±4]. This finding has been replicated using video and image presentations
of natural and built environments [5±7], suggesting that cognitive restoration does not
necessarily require a multi-sensory environmental experience.
To account for the restorative potential of natural environments, common reference is made
to attention restoration theory (ART; R. [8±10]. This theory claims that the built environment
invokes stronger bottom-up attentional capture (i.e. hard fascination) than the natural
environment due to a ubiquity of irrelevant, yet fascinating, stimuli. This is purported to lead to the
expenditure of executive attention resources on top-down control of behaviour [
its popularity, there is no direct empirical support for the central idea in ART that environments
eliciting strong attentional capture interfere with restoration from mental fatigue.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Here we propose that scene saliency [11±12] can function as an empirically-derived
indicator of the degree to which (elements within) environments invoke hard or soft fascination;
attentional capture is considered to be a function of stimulus saliency ([
], but see [
], for an
alternative view). Although not typically used towards this end, we believe for reasons outlined
below that saliency levels can be established by measuring speed of scene category detection
using a Go/No-Go detection paradigm (e.g. [15±16]).
Speeded scene detection as an indicator of saliency
The Go/No-Go detection paradigm involves participants detecting briefly flashed images from
a pre-specified target category as quickly as possible while ignoring distractor images. This
type of task is typically deployed to study the processing time of a scene's global lay-out
properties and category (e.g., a beach or a forest), which is referred to as the scene gist [
initial, abstract scene representation may also include elementary features such as luminance,
edges (i.e., orientation), contrast and chromacity (i.e., colour) that are of a salient nature [11±
18]. Importantly, research suggests that such elementary features might be represented to
different degrees in natural and built environments. Typical modern, Western, built
environments are dominated by straight contours and smooth surfaces, whereas natural environments
are characterized by undulating, smooth contours and textured surfaces [19±20]. Contrast
levels are also different with more "sharp discontinuities and abrupt transitions" ([
], p. 15) in
built scenes as they tend to lack the strong correlation in luminance value, as well as the
orientation, of neighbouring pixels typical of natural scenes [22±23]. If ART is correct, we would
predict low-level features of built environments to be more salient than low-level features of
natural environments. A brief exposure time is sufficient to generate awareness and
rudimentary identification of objects with such salient features. For example, exposure to an image
showing an interior of a house for only 27 ms followed by a backward mask was sufficient for
participants to report "square things, maybe furniture" in a free recall task [
]. Research has
also demonstrated that people use such local information, along with global information (i.e.
the distribution of low-level features such as orientation, colour or texture throughout the
whole scene), in speeded scene and object detection tasks [25±27]. For example, an image
manipulation which distorts low-level scene features reduced the speed at which scenes could
be detected as either natural or built [
A potential limitation of the Go/No-Go detection paradigm is that factors other than
saliency could influence speed of detection. This might be elements (e.g., fearful stimuli) for
which we have evolved specialized detection modules [
] or that are familiar due to prior
experience in an experimental setting [29±30] or in real life [
]. Images also vary in low-level
features that could inadvertently influence detection performance [
]. For example, a recent
study showed a relationship between mean contrast energy in natural and built scenes and
response time following brief exposures, with scenes high in contrast energy more likely to be
built scenes [
]. In the present study, these concerns have been addressed by selecting a very
substantial and variable set of natural and built images depicting local, familiar settings. This
approach was preferred over controlling images for low-level features because it allowed
saliency to be approximated as it naturally varies between natural and built scene content. In
addition, we also statistically controlled for participants' experience living in rural or urban
environments, which could influence familiarity with either natural or built scenes.
The present study
The first aim of the study was to investigate if built scenes indeed have more diagnostic salient
features than natural scenes, which could potentially be important to predicting the restorative
2 / 18
qualities of a scene by triggering attentional capture, using the Go/No-Go detection paradigm.
As many of our everyday environments comprise a mixture of natural and built content, it was
also explored how semantically inconsistent elements (i.e. built elements within a natural scene
or vice versaÐelectricity pylons within a field; trees within a street) impact on speeded scene
detection. Inconsistent scenes can be contrasted with consistent scenes in which there are no
inconsistent elements. The extent to which an inconsistent object interferes with the speed of
scene category detection is likely to be higher for objects from the builtÐmore
]. A second aim of this study, and a direct test of ART, was to study if salient elements
in a scene negatively impact on restoration from mental fatigue.
Go/No-Go studies have previously been undertaken to scrutinize whether evolutionary
relevant animal stimuli are detected more quickly than artificial `means of transport' stimuli [
Other studies employed the Go/No-Go paradigm in combination with natural and built scene
presentations (with and without semantically inconsistent objects; [15±16, 26]. However, these
studies were not specifically designed to contrast peak saliency levels in natural and built
scenes, and the findings are inconclusive in terms of the predictions made by ART. The
present research therefore took an alternative approach to image selection by classifying the scene
category of images, setting exposure times and applying backward masking. For example, we
avoided commercial image libraries, instead selecting images of everyday mostly mundane
scenes from different online resources. In addition, we checked for inter-rater agreement on
scene labels, which showed that people had stronger agreement on the meaning of the
concepts 'natural' and 'built' than alternative concepts such as 'pristine' or man-made'. Hence, we
chose 'natural' and 'built' as the response categories in the Go/No-Go task. A second pilot
study served to allocate images to validate the four image categories: natural consistent; natural
inconsistent, built consistent and built inconsistent by an independent panel. We discarded any
images with low high inter-rater agreement or borderline classifications of natural and built
scene content. A full description of how the approach to image selection and classifying scene
category diverged from previous practice in Go/No-Go studies is provided in the online
Previous natural/built Go/No-Go studies have typically presented natural and built images
at very brief exposure times within the 20±27 ms range with no backward masking [15±16,
26]. However, this practice could have enabled ongoing processing of scene information after
image offset due to the storage of visual information in a sensory buffer (i.e. iconic memory;
]). This ongoing processing of an ªafterimageº can be interrupted by presenting a new
visual stimulus (i.e. a backward mask) within a short time interval of the experimental
stimulus. Backward masking is thus of relevance when investigating what stimulus content is most
salient. Therefore, the image presentation procedure of the present study included backward
masking. A previous study using speeded detection tasks including backward masking
demonstrated that the natural and built scene category of images could be classified with 75%
accuracy after just 19 ms of exposure time [
]). Another study showed above chance performance
in a natural/man-made categorization after a 12 ms exposure followed by a mask with a 12 ms
stimulus onset asynchrony [
], while a third study showed that masked image presentations
of 27 ms suffice to discriminate natural from built scenes above chance level [
]. Since it has
not yet been established what exposure time threshold is required for stimulus saliency to
affect natural/built scene detection in a Go/No-Go task using a set of consistent and
inconsistent scenes, images were presented at five different exposure times within the 13±67 ms range.
The first two experiments tested the hypothesis that scene detection (natural or built) is
faster for built than natural scenes in a Go/No-Go task. In addition, we envisaged the
detrimental effect of an object that is inconsistent with superordinate scene category to be larger in
natural (with a built object) than in built (with a natural object) scenes. A third experiment
3 / 18
was run to directly test the central idea in ART that non-salient scenes are more cognitively
restorative than salient scenes, using images classified as having salient or non-salient features
on the basis of response times in previous Go/No-Go experiments. This was done by
investigating how exposure to slideshows with images of either high or low saliency influences
performance on the Backward Digit Span task, which was employed as a measure of directed
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection and the
study received ethical approval from University of Aberdeen Psychology Ethics Panel,
following the principles of the British Psychological Society and the Declaration of Helsinki.
Participants and design. Forty students (25 female) with a mean age of 21.7 years (SE =
.59) were recruited from the University of Aberdeen. Participation was rewarded with course
credit. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Data collection ceased once
the pre-determined sample size based on similar Go/No-Go experiments with natural and
built images (e.g., [
]), taking into account the higher number of exposure times, was
The experiment used a 2 (Target Category: Natural or Built) x 2 (Consistency: Consistent
or Inconsistent) within-subjects design.
Materials. A total of 1600 full-colour images were selected from two online image
repositories: SCRAN (Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network, http://www.scran.ac.uk) and
Flickr Creative Commons (http://www.flickr.com); 400 representative of each of the four
image categories (consistent natural, consistent built, inconsistent natural, inconsistent built).
All images were resized to a resolution of 668 x 501 pixels (or 501 x 668 when vertically
orientated). Scene category of images was validated using a pilot study (100 participants; 71 female;
M = 20.6 years old; SE = .53). This resulted in a 1060-image (50% natural) database with both
consistent and inconsistent images that had been reliably categorized as either natural or
built. A detailed description of the image validation procedure is provided in S1 Supporting
Procedure. A Go/No-Go paradigm was employed with natural and built target and
distracter images. Participants were instructed to push and hold a pre-assigned button on a
keypad, upon which a fixation dot appeared, remaining on the screen for a duration randomly set
between 500±700 ms. Following a brief blank screen (200 ms), either a natural or a built image
was displayed for a duration of 13, 27, 40, 53 or 67 ms (randomly set). This image was replaced
by a dynamic mask, consisting of eight randomly selected white noise images (from a set of
16), presented without inter-stimulus interval for a duration of 104 ms (8 13 ms). Finally, a
fixation cross was displayed for 1,000 ms in order to provide participants with additional time to
make a response (see Fig 1).
Participants were instructed to respond to target images (presented in 50% of all trials) by
lifting their finger from the button as quickly as possible (ªGoº-response) and to distractor
images by continuing to hold the button pressed down (ªNo-Goº-response). Following a
ªGoº-response, a new trial could be initiated by pressing the button. A new trial was initiated
automatically following a ªNo-Goº-response.
The experiment commenced with a 20-trial training block with exposure time set at 67 ms.
Participants received immediate feedback on any errors made and the training block was
4 / 18
Fig 1. A schematic overview of a trial in the Go/No-Go task.
looped until performance was above a threshold of 80 percent correct. Midway through the
experiment, target category was switched and participants completed training once again
before onset of the second block of trials. Within a block of trials an equal number of natural
and built images were presented at each of the five exposure times. Each participant completed
1060 experimental trials. Hence, a group of 10 participants was required for an image to be
presented once as a target and as a distractor at each of the exposure times (1060 images x 5
exposure times x 2 trial types = 10600 trials). In addition, 60 mask-only control trials were
randomly interspersed amongst the experimental trials. These served to check if participants
associated a lack of salient of information with natural scenes.
Data collection and analysis. The present research was conducted in brightly lit
computer cubicles without daylight. The experiment was run on the software E-Prime 2.0
(Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, PA). Trials were displayed on a 19-inch flat panel
monitor (Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX). The screen resolution of the monitor was set at 1280 x
1024 pixels with a refresh rate of 75 Hz. All participants were seated at 100 cm from the
computer screen. Images displayed on the screen subtended 10Ê x 7.5Ê (or 7.5Ê x 10Ê when
vertically oriented) of visual angle. All statistical analyses (mixed models with fixed and random
effects) have been run using the glmer program (lme4 package; [
]) in the R system for
statistical analysis [
Random effects capture and remove systematic variance above and beyond the effects of
the included predictor variables in the regression equation. Random effects are ideally drawn
upon when one wishes to generalize findings obtained with a specific sample used in an
experiment to the wider population, when observations are nested within observers and when
there are multiple observations from each participant [
]. Such generalization was also a
5 / 18
requirement in the present study since each participant was presented with a different set of images
at each of the exposure times. That is, more than one participant was required for each image to be
presented at each of the exposure times for a single time. Random effects ruled out any unwanted
influence of individual differences in task behaviour on the outcome of the data analysis.
The accuracy of detection was derived based on a combined measure encompassing the
proportion of hits and correct rejections for images from a single target category (e.g., natural
targets and built distractors). It was controlled for any confounding influence by participant
age and gender through incorporating the interaction between these two variables within the
regression equation. In addition, it was controlled for familiarity through including the Rural
Experience variable, derived by dividing the number of years spent living in a village, hamlet,
and/or farm by participant age, as predictor variable. Note that when using the lme4
procedure, the effect of variables entered in the equation is conditional on (i.e. controlled for) those
All data with associated response times smaller than 150 ms or greater than 1,000 ms were
regarded as non-response data. A lower 150 ms response time threshold was chosen in
agreement with the time interval required for target-specific neural activity to occur in higher-order
visual areas (e.g., [
]). The upper 1,000 ms threshold was chosen in line with previous studies
in which the Go/No-Go paradigm has been applied (e.g., [
]). Only response times associated
with correct go responses were analyzed.
Accuracy. To contrast the accuracy of natural and built target scene detection, separately
for consistent and inconsistent image categories, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)
was fitted with both participant number and image ID as random factors. In addition, it
included as fixed factors a two-way interaction term between Gender and Age, Rural
Experience and a three-way nested interaction term between ET (13, 27, 40, 53 or 67 ms), Target
Category (natural or built) and Consistency (consistent or inconsistent). Concerning the effect of
Target Category, higher accuracy of natural than built scene detection was observed with
regard to both the consistent and the inconsistent image categories for the 67 ms ET (see Fig 2A
& Table 1). In addition, inconsistent natural targets were detected more accurately than
inconsistent built targets for the 40 ms ET. Finally, non-image control trials were more often
misclassified as natural than as built targets (M = 18.6%, SE = 4.80 & M = 5.6%, SE = 1.75; b = 1.32, SE
= .13, z = 10.2, p < .001).
Accuracy of detection was negatively influenced by inconsistent objects for both natural
and built scene detection across all ETs (all p's < .008, see S1 Table). The effect of consistency
was similar across natural and built target categories as signified by an absence of significant
Target Category x Consistency interactions (see S2 Table).
Response time. Next, all predictor and random variables from the GLMM were entered
into a linear mixed model (LMM) for the analysis of response time (RT). It was chosen to
withhold from analyzing the data associated with the 13 ms ET. This addressed a concern that a
high proportion of correct responses for this ET may have resulted from guessing (accuracy
associated with the 13 ms exposure time was still analysed in order to check the extent to
which participants were guessing at the 13 ms exposure time). The RT analysis revealed that
for the remaining ETs, the RTs associated with built scene detection were consistently shorter
than those for natural scene detection (all p's < .001). This finding applied to consistent and
inconsistent scenes alike (see Fig 2B & Table 1).
Consistency condition did neither influence the speed of natural nor that of built scene
detection (see S1 Table). The only exception was with regard to built scene detection for the 67
6 / 18
Fig 2. The results of Experiment 1 showing the (a) mean accuracy (%) and (b) mean response time (ms) associated
with detection of image targets varying in scene category (natural or built) and consistency (consistent or inconsistent)
for different exposure times. Error bars depict mean ± 1 SE.
ms ET, which was slowed down for scenes including a natural element (b = 12.27, SE = 5.13,
t = 2.39, p = .017). The analysis on RT did not reveal any significant interactions between
Target Category and Consistency (see S2 Table).
In agreement with the hypothesis that built content is more salient than natural content, built
scenes were detected with shorter response times than natural scenes. This applied to both the
consistent and inconsistent images for each of the four exposure times in the 27±67 ms range.
Although the accuracy of natural scene detection was also higher for some of the exposure
times, this only applied to image presentations with longer durations. A speed-accuracy
tradeoff could therefore not account for the majority of the findings. Mask-only control trials were
more often (mis)classified as natural rather than built scenes. This suggests that natural scenes
are associated by participants with the absence of salient information.
A consistency effect could not be established with regard to the response time measure,
except for built scene detection at the 67 ms exposure time. Also, it was comparable in size
across natural and built scenes for each of the exposure times. This is in disagreement with the
idea that built objects in natural scenes are more salient than natural objects in built scenes.
The aim of the next experiment was to investigate if the lack of support for this hypothesis
could be accounted for by colour speeding up natural scene detection disproportionally.
Colour information is extracted quickly and natural scenes are more colour diagnostic than
built scenes [
]. Hence, colour might have been used as a heuristic for scene category.
Experiment 2 served to test the extent to which colour affects detection performance. To this
end, we repeated Experiment 1 with an achromatic image set while retaining the original
hypotheses. Images were controlled for colour, but not for any other image features that might
be systematically associated with scene category (e.g., contrast, luminance, spatial frequency).
The rationale for this is that these image properties fundamentally contribute to the structure
of a scene (e.g., [
]) and we were primarily interested in gauging the saliency of the structural
Participants and design. Forty students (30 female) with a mean age of 21.1 years (SE =
.74) who had not participated in Experiment 1 were recruited from the University of
Aberdeen. Participant requirements, reward, data-collection stoppage rule and experimental design
were akin to Experiment 1.
Materials and procedure. All images used in Experiment 1 were converted into greyscale
by applying a luminance conversion in Adobe Photoshop 12.0. This entailed that the red (R),
green (G) and blue (B) channels describing each image pixel were converted into a single
luminance value based on conventional use of a weighted average of the colour channels (.21 R +
.72 G + .07 B). This method was preferred over alternative solutions in order to preserve
the contrast from the original full-colour image.
The experimental procedure matched that of Experiment 1 in all aspects.
Accuracy. A GLMM identical to that used for Experiment 1 was fitted to analyze
accuracy. This showed that the accuracy of consistent built target detection outweighed that of
consistent natural targets for the 27 and 40 exposure times (ETs; see Fig 3A & Table 2). In
addition, inconsistent built targets were detected with higher accuracy than inconsistent natural
targets for the 13 and 27 ms ETs. Non-significant trends for higher accuracy of natural than built
target detection could be observed with regard to both consistent and inconsistent scenes for
the longer exposure times. Finally, mask-only control trials were more often misclassified as
natural than as built scenes (M = 18.6%, SE = 4.80 & M = 5.6%, SE = 1.75; b = 1.42, SE = .13,
z = 10.7, p < .001).
The consistency effects previously established in Experiment 1 were largely replicated in the
present experiment. This implies that consistency affected the accuracy of natural and built
target scene detection for each of the ETs (all p's < .014, see S3 Table). The only exception was
the accuracy of built target detection for the 13 ms ET, which remained unaffected.
Furthermore, a significant Target Category x Consistency interaction was established for the 27 ms
8 / 18
Fig 3. The results of Experiment 2 (achromatic scenes) showing the (a) mean accuracy (%) and (b) mean response
time (ms) associated with detection of image targets varying in scene category (natural or built) and consistency
(consistent or inconsistent) for different exposure times. Error bars depict mean ± 1 SE.
ET, signalling a stronger consistency effect for built than for natural target detection (b = -.31,
SE = .11, z = -2.74, p = .006). No Target Category x Consistency interactions were observed at
any of the other exposure times (see S4 Table).
Response time. An LMM with identical variables to that in Experiment 2 was fitted in
order to test the hypotheses related to the response time (RT) measure. Again, the data for the
13 ms ET were not analyzed as detection was close to chance-level. The results indicated that
both consistent and inconsistent built scenes were detected with shorter RTs than their natural
counterparts for each of the ETs (see Fig 3B & Table 2).
Scene consistency influenced RTs to natural scenes for the two longest ETs (53 ms:
b = 15.25, SE = 5.88, t = 2.59, p = .010; 67 ms: b = 30.0, SE = 5.79, t = 5.18, p < .001). There was
no effect of consistency on built scene detection for any of the ETs (see S3 Table). The analysis
of consistency further showed a significant Target Category x Consistency interaction for the
67 ms ET (b = -22.45, SE = 7.47, t = -3.01, p = .003), whilst not showing any significant effects
for the other ETs (see S4 Table). This was due to a relatively profound detrimental influence of
built elements on the speed of natural scene detection.
Discussion. The findings largely replicated those of Experiment 1. Both consistent and
inconsistent built scene were detected with shorter response times than their natural
counterparts at each of the exposure times, which supports the hypothesis that built scenes have more
salient diagnostic features than natural scenes. None of these findings could be accounted for
by a speed-accuracy trade-off as accuracy of detection was similar between natural and built
targets at each of the exposure times. Again, mask-only control trials were more often (mis)
classified as a natural than as a built scene.
In agreement with the hypothesis that built objects in natural scenes are more salient than
the reverse, a stronger scene consistency effect on response time was observed for the natural
than the built scene category at the 67 ms exposure time. Since this effect was not established
when chromatic images were used in Experiment 1, it suggests that participants to some extent
used colour as a heuristic for scene category. This is in agreement with previous studies
showing that colour speeds up detection of colour-diagnostic scenes [42±43].
After having successfully demonstrated higher saliency of built than natural scene content, the
aim of Experiment 3 was to test if saliency of scene content is indeed predictive of attention
restoration. The procedure was based on a previous cognitive restoration study reported by
Berman et al. [5, Experiment 2];. Participants performed the backward digit span (BDS) as a
measure of directed-attention cognitive ability.
Participants and design. Forty-eight students (33 female) with a mean age of 21.4 years
(SE = .13) were recruited from the University of Aberdeen. Participation was rewarded with
course credit. Data collection ceased once the pre-determined sample size based on Berman
et al. ([
]; Experiment 2) was reached.
The experiment used a 2 (Scene Category: Natural or Built) x 2 (Saliency: Salient or
NonSalient) between-subjects design.
Materials and procedure. The BDS-task was administered and scored as in the study of
Berman et al. [
]. This entails that participants were presented with random digit sequences,
which they were required to reproduce in the reverse order of presentation. The first digit
sequence in the BDS-task was always three digits in length and after every second sequence
one digit was added to the total. The final two sequences were nine digits in length, which
entailed that a total of 14 digit sequences were presented. The BDS-score was derived by
summing up the number of correctly reported sequences (irrespective of sequence length).
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; [
]) was administered to gauge affect.
Participants rated the extent to which 10 positive-affect and 10 negative-affect adjectives described
their current mood, using a five-point Likert scale (1 = slightly/not at all, 5 = extremely).
Four sets of 50 highly variable natural and built images served as stimuli for the slideshow.
All images were extracted from the set of 600 full-colour consistent natural and built images
presented in Experiment 1. The images in both categories were selected based on aggregated
mean response times associated with Correct Go responses in Experiment 1 and two pilot
experiments described in Van der Jagt ([
], pp. 72±89). Those 50 natural and built scenes
detected with the lowest and highest mean response times were classified as salient and
non-salient images, respectively (see Fig 4). Image resolution, presentation apparatus and
10 / 18
Fig 4. Examples of salient and non-salient natural and built images as used in Experiment 3.
experimental software were identical to that employed in Experiments 1±2. The BDS and
PANAS were administered as pencil-and-paper tasks.
Participants indicated their age and gender before completing the experimental tasks. They
were randomly allocated to either one of the four image conditions. Images were presented for
seven seconds each. Participants provided a preference rating on a 3-point Likert scale (1 =
low, 3 = high) following image offset. Upon finishing the slideshow, the PANAS and BDS-task
were completed a second time.
To investigate the effects of scene category and saliency on restoration, linear mixed models
(LMMs) with participant number as random variable were fitted. These included as predictor
variables the two-way interaction between Gender and Age and the three-way interaction
between Scene Category (natural or built), Saliency (salient or non-salient) and Measure
(preor post-slideshow). These showed no significant three-way interactions for BDS (b = .92, SE =
.97, t = .95, p >.250) and the two affect variables (positive affect: b = -3.08, SE = 3.49, t = -.88,
p >.250; negative affect: b = .17, SE = 1.88, t = .09, p >.250).
Subsequently, LMMs in which the three-way interaction term was replaced by two two-way
interaction terms (Scene Category x Measure & Saliency x Measure) were fitted. In agreement
with the hypothesis, the LMM on BDS-score showed a significant Scene Category x Measure
interaction (b = -2.96, SE = .48, t = -6.12, p < .001), which was due to natural scenes increasing
digit span more strongly than built scenes (see Fig 5A). The Saliency x Measure interaction
was also significant (b = 1.04, SE = .48, t = 2.16, p = .036). Fig 5B shows that this is due to salient
scenes increasing digit span to a lesser degree than non-salient scenes. Positive and negative
affect were not influenced by scene category (positive affect: b = -1.71, SE = 1.74, t = -.98, p >
.250; negative affect: b = 1.17, SE = .93, t = 1.26, p = .22) or saliency (positive affect: b = -.79,
SE = 1.74, t = -.45, p >.250; negative affect: b = -.83, SE = .93, t = -.90, p >.250) of images. The
LMM on preference ratings (excluding the Measure predictor variable) showed a main effect
of Scene Category, indicating that participants liked natural scenes better than built scenes
11 / 18
Fig 5. Pre- and post-slideshow Backward Digit Span (BDS) scores for (a) the Scene Category x Measure interaction
and (b) the Saliency x Measure interaction. Error bars depict mean ± 1 SE.
(b = -.34, SE = .07, t = -5.03, p < .001). Preferences were not significantly different between
salient and non-salient scenes (b = -.09, SE = .07, t = -1.38, p = .176).
Using an established restoration paradigm in combination with a new image set, we replicated
the finding that natural scene content is cognitively more restorative than built scene content
previous demonstrated by Berman et al [
]. Crucially, it was also shown that saliency, as it
naturally varies with different scene content, significantly interacts with restoration effects: scenes
lacking salient content were cognitively more restorative than scenes including salient content.
The effect of saliency on the degree of cognitive restoration can be considered separately from
the effect of natural-built scene category as an equal number of natural and built scenes were
included in the groupings with high and low saliency. This finding provides empirical support
for the assumption in ART that scenes which invoke soft fascination (i.e. that lack salient
content) are more restorative than those triggering hard fascination (i.e. that have salient content).
The effect of saliency on restoration is relatively weak when compared to the effect of scene
category, which could potentially be explained by saliency having less of a role in explaining
response times to natural scenes; instead diagnostic colour may have been a much more
important variable. In this sense, the effect of saliency on restoration perhaps may not be
considered fully independent of scene category.
The present study investigated the assumption in ART (e.g., [
]) that scenes which invoke soft
fascination are more restorative than those triggering hard fascination. Specifically, we tested
whether the saliency of scene content can function as an empirically-derived indicator of hard
and soft fascination. Our results show that built scene content is more salient than natural
content (Experiments 1 & 2) and provide some indication that, when controlled for colour, built
objects within a natural scene are more salient than natural objects in built environments
12 / 18
(Experiment 2). Moreover, Experiment 3 was the first study in the literature to demonstrate
that both the saliency level of image content, as well as its (natural or built) scene category,
influence cognitive restoration.
The disruptive effect of a semantically inconsistent element on accuracy of natural and built
scene detection is in agreement with research showing an inhibitory relationship between
object- and scene-centered neural pathways [
] and studies showing a negative influence of
semantically inconsistent objects on accuracy of scene detection [
]. Additional studies
are required to explore the extent to which inconsistent objects (e.g., wind turbines in a
landscape) associated with saliency are predictive of restoration and to better understand what
features tend to influence the typically high saliency of built environments. Candidate features
could include straight edges and lines (in particular two-dimensional edge content such as
corners or occlusions), which have been shown to be predictive of scene fixations using eye
tracking [48±49]. Indeed, a recent study showed a lack of straight lines and low hue diversity to be
predictive of participants' ratings of naturalness . For that reason, it is not unlikely that
there is a relationship between saliency and perceived naturalness in both natural and built
scenes. Future work could also look into the question of the extent to which saliency plays a
role in predicting cognitive restoration in response to natural scenes, as it may be that people
do not rely on the perception of salient low-level features when detecting natural scenes,
instead using global information or simply responding to a lack of salient features.
Another interesting research avenue to explore would be the question of whether all salient
features, not just those diagnostic of natural or built scene content, predict cognitive
restoration to a similar extent. To this end, computational modelling could be applied to create image
sets that vary in saliency of scene content based on a particular type of low-level feature
contrast (e.g., luminance or colour) predicting saliency, but not on others. These image sets could
then be compared on their potential to evoke cognitive restoration using a behavioural
experiment similar to that in Experiment 3.
Another interesting question to explore is whether, given the speed of saliency-based
attention of <50 ms [
], participants really need longer image exposures (7 s p/image in the
present study) for restoration from mental fatigue to occur. Restorative nature experiences
following brief interactions with nature have been anecdotally described [51±52], but to our
knowledge temporal aspects of restoration have not yet been studied systematically. On what
grounds would we predict exposures of several seconds or more per image are required for
cognitive restoration? According to ART the purported link between saliency and attention
restoration is that executive attention is required to inhibit attentional capture from irrelevant
stimuli in order to maintain a task focus [
]. However, there was no clear need for
participants to inhibit irrelevant stimuli in the present study. That is, participants were not asked to
perform any cognitive tasks concurrently with observing the slideshow and no incentive was
provided for inhibiting the materials displayed on the screen. An alternative explanation may
be offered by the biased competition theory . According to this theory, stimuli compete for
visual representation in the ventral visual pathway and this competition is biased to items with
either top-down or bottom-up saliency. Beck and Kastner [
] provide an excellent overview
of research in support of this claim. For instance, it has been shown for neurons in the ventral
visual streamÐa cortical network important in driving bottom-up attention [55±56]Ðthat
their activation in response to a particular reference stimulus displayed in their receptive field
is suppressed when an additional probe stimulus is presented, indicating mutually suppressive
interactions rather than independent processing [
]. Furthermore, they also demonstrated
that the level of suppression is enhanced when the saliency of the probe stimulus is increased.
Interestingly, single-cell recording studies have shown that executive attention can be used to
overcome a suppressive influence by a stimulus. Kastner and Ungerleider ([
], p. 323) write
13 / 18
about this: "[. . .] attention may resolve the competition among multiple stimuli by
counteracting the suppressive influences of nearby stimuli, thereby enhancing information processing at
the attended location. This may be an important mechanism by which attention filters out
unwanted information from cluttered visual scenes".
It follows from this that executive attention is required when visually exploring scenes to
suppress involuntary attention to salient elements, and deployment of executive attention in
this process is likely a function of the saliency of scene content. A tentative theory could
therefore be that exposure to scenes with salient content depletes the executive attention resource
because executive attention is required in eliminating the suppression of non-salient scene
content. If this or a similar theory predicting a positive relationship between saliency and
executive attention required for detailed scene processing is valid, we would indeed expect to only
find a relationship between saliency of scene content and cognitive restoration with longer
exposure times, allowing for a number of fixations on a scene.
This study directly supports ART by showing that visual information invoking soft
fascination (i.e. non-salient scene content) is cognitively restorative. Objectively measuring scene
saliency may therefore provide a rigorous empirical means to establish the restorative potential
of different types of environments, both natural and built. We argue that these findings can
contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what entails a `restorative' environment that
moves beyond the current approach of treating natural and built scene categories as
homogenous entities [
S1 Supporting Information.
S1 Table. The effect of consistency (consistent or inconsistent) on accuracy and response
time (RT) for different levels of target category (TC) and exposure time (ET) in
S2 Table. The effect of the consistency x target category interaction on accuracy and
response time (RT) for different levels of exposure time (ET) in Experiment 1.
S3 Table. The effect of consistency (consistent or inconsistent) on accuracy and response
time (RT) for different levels of target category (TC) and exposure time (ET) in
S4 Table. The effect of the consistency x target category interaction on accuracy and
response time (RT) for different levels of exposure time (ET) in Experiment 2.
S1 Fig. A plot depicting the frequency at which images within the final databases for the
four image categories were rated at each of the possible combined content scores.
We thank James Urquhart for technical support and Kathryn Shield for assisting with the data
collection. This research was partly funded by a grant from ACES (Aberdeen Centre for
14 / 18
Environmental Sustainability) and by the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment
Science and Analytical Services Division.
Conceptualization: DGP TC APNVDJ.
Data curation: APNVDJ.
Formal analysis: APNVDJ.
Funding acquisition: DGP TC.
Methodology: APNVDJ DGP TC.
Project administration: APNVDJ DGP TC.
Resources: DGP TC MJB.
Supervision: APNVDJ DGP TC MJB.
Validation: APNVDJ DGP TC MJB.
Writing ± original draft: APNVDJ.
Writing ± review & editing: APNVDJ DGP TC MJB.
15 / 18
16 / 18
17 / 18
1. Hartig , T. ( 2011 ). Issues in restorative environments research: Matters of measurement . In B. FernaÂndez-RamÂõrez , C. Hidalgo Villodres , C. Salvador Ferrer , & J. Martos MeÂndez (Eds.), PsicologÂõa Ambiental 2011 : Entre Los Estudios Urbanos y El AnaÂlisis De La Sostenibilidad (pp. 41 ± 66 ). AlmerÂõa: Universidad de AlmerÂõa.
2. Hartig T. , Mang M. , & Evans G. W. ( 1991 ). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences . Environment and Behavior , 23 ( 1 ), 3 ± 26 .
3. Hartig T. , Evans G. W. , Jamner L. D. , Davis D. S. , & GaÈrling T. ( 2003 ). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings . Journal of Environmental Psychology , 23 ( 2 ), 109 ± 123 . https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0272- 4944 ( 02 ) 00109 - 3
4. Ottosson J. , & Grahn P. ( 2005 ). A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with leisure time spent indoors: On measures of restoration in residents in geriatric care . Landscape Research , 30 ( 1 ), 23 ± 55 .
5. Berman M. G. , Jonides J. , & Kaplan S. ( 2008 ). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature . Psychological Science , 19 ( 12 ), 1207 ± 1212 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9280 . 2008 . 02225 . x PMID : 19121124
6. Berto R. ( 2005 ). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity . Journal of Environmental Psychology , 25 ( 3 ), 249 ± 259 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp. 2005 . 07 .001
7. Van den Berg A. E. , Koole S. L. , & van der Wulp N. Y. ( 2003 ). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related ? Journal of Environmental Psychology , 23 ( 2 ), 135 ± 146 . https://doi.org/10. 1016/s0272- 4944 ( 02 ) 00111 - 1
8. Kaplan R. , & Kaplan S. ( 1989 ). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective . New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Kaplan S. ( 1995 ). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework . Journal of Environmental Psychology , 15 ( 3 ), 169 ± 182 . https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0272 - 4944 ( 95 ) 90001 - 2
10. Kaplan S. , & Berman M. G. ( 2010 ). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 5 ( 1 ), 43 ± 57 . https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691609356784 PMID: 26162062
11. Itti L. , & Koch C. ( 2001 ). Computational modelling of visual attention . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 2 ( 3 ), 194 ± 203 . https://doi.org/10.1038/35058500 PMID: 11256080
12. Serences J. T. , Shomstein S. , Leber A. B. , Golay X. , Egeth H. E. , & Yantis S. ( 2005 ). Coordination of voluntary and stimulus-driven attentional control in human cortex . Psychological Science , 16 ( 2 ), 114 ± 122 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956- 7976 . 2005 . 00791 . x PMID : 15686577
13. Theeuwes J . ( 2004 ). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 11 ( 1 ), 65 ± 70 . https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206462
14. Yantis S. ( 2000 ). Goal directed and stimulus driven determinants of attentional control . In Monsell S., & Driver J. (Eds.), Attention & performance XVIII (pp . 73 ± 104 ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Joubert O. R. , Rousselet G. A. , Fize D. , & Fabre-Thorpe M. ( 2007 ). Processing scene context: Fast categorization and object interference . Vision Research , 47 ( 26 ), 3286 ± 3297 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j. visres. 2007 . 09 .013 PMID: 17967472
16. Mack M. L. , & Palmeri T. J. ( 2010 ). Modeling categorization of scenes containing consistent versus inconsistent objects . Journal of Vision , 10 ( 3 ), 1 ± 11 . https://doi.org/10.1167/10.3.11 PMID: 20377288
17. Oliva A. ( 2005 ). Gist of the scene . Neurobiology of attention , 696 ( 64 ), 251 ± 258 .
18. Itti L. , & Koch C. ( 2000 ). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention . Vision Research , 40 ( 10 ±12), 1489 ± 1506 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042- 6989 ( 99 ) 00163 - 7 PMID: 10788654
19. Oliva A. , & Torralba A. ( 2001 ). Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope . International Journal of Computer Vision , 42 ( 3 ), 145 ± 175 . https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1011139631724
20. Torralba A. , & Oliva A. ( 2003 ). Statistics of natural image categories . NetworkÐComputation in Neural Systems , 14 ( 3 ), 391 ± 412 . https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0954 -898X/14/3/302
21. Wohlwill J. F. ( 1983 ). The concept of nature: A psychologist's view . In Altman I., & Wohlwill J. F .(Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research , Vol. 6 (pp. 5 ± 38 ). New York: Plenum Press.
22. Geisler W. S. , Perry J. S. , Super B. J. , & Gallogly D. P. ( 2001 ). Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance . Vision Research , 41 ( 6 ), 711 ± 724 . https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0042- 6989 ( 00 ) 00277 - 7 PMID: 11248261
23. Sigman M. , Cecchi G. A. , Gilbert C. D. , & Magnasco M. O. ( 2001 ). On a common circle: Natural scenes and Gestalt rules . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 98 ( 4 ), 1935 ± 1940 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.4. 1935 PMID: 11172054
24. Fei-Fei L. , Iyer A. , Koch C. , & Perona P. ( 2007 ). What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene ? Journal of Vision , 7 ( 1 ), 1 ± 29 . https://doi.org/10.1167/7.1.10 PMID: 17461678
25. Evans K. K. , & Treisman A. ( 2005 ). Perception of objects in natural scenes: Is it really attention free? Journal of Experimental PsychologyÐHuman Perception and Performance, 31 ( 6 ), 1476 ± 1492 . https:// doi.org/10.1037/ 0096 - 1523 . 31 .6.1476 PMID: 16366803
26. Joubert O. R. , Rousselet G. A. , Fabre-Thorpe M. , & Fize D. ( 2009 ). Rapid visual categorization of natural scene contexts with equalized amplitude spectrum and increasing phase noise . Journal of Vision , 9 ( 1 ), 1 ± 16 . https://doi.org/10.1167/9.1.2 PMID: 19271872
27. Loschky L. C. , & Larson A. M. ( 2008 ). Localized information is necessary for scene categorization, including the natural/man-made distinction . Journal of Vision , 8 ( 1 ), 1±9. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.1.4 PMID: 18318607
28. New J., Cosmides L. , & Tooby J. ( 2007 ). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 104 ( 42 ), 16598 ± 16603 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703913104 PMID: 17909181
29. Chun M. M. , & Jiang Y. ( 1998 ). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention . Cognitive Psychology , 36 ( 1 ), 28 ± 71 . https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp. 1998 .0681 PMID: 9679076
30. Chun M. M. , & Jiang Y. ( 1999 ). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual covariation . Psychological Science , 10 , 360± 365 . https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467 - 9280 . 00168
31. Greene M. R. , Botros A. P. , Beck D. M. , & Fei-Fei L . ( 2015 ). What you see is what you expect: rapid scene understanding benefits from prior experience . Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics , 77 ( 4 ), 1239 ± 1251 .
32. Groen I. I. , Ghebreab S. , Prins H. , Lamme V. A. , & Scholte H. S. ( 2013 ). From image statistics to scene gist: evoked neural activity reveals transition from low-level natural image structure to scene category . The Journal of Neuroscience , 33 ( 48 ), 18814 ± 18824 . https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3128- 13 . 2013 PMID: 24285888
33. VanRullen R., & Thorpe S. J. ( 2001 ). Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultra-rapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects . Perception , 30 ( 6 ), 655 ± 668 . https://doi.org/10.1068/p3029 PMID: 11464555
34. Coltheart M. ( 1980 ). Iconic memory and visible persistence . Perception & Psychophysics , 27 , 183± 228 . https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204258
35. Greene M. R. , & Oliva A. ( 2009 ). The briefest of glances: The time course of natural scene understanding . Psychological Science , 20 ( 4 ), 464 ± 472 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9280 . 2009 . 02316 . x PMID : 19399976
36. Loschky L. C. , & Larson A. M. ( 2010 ). The natural/man-made distinction is made before basic-level distinctions in scene gist processing . Visual Cognition , 18 ( 4 ), 513 ± 536 . https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13506280902937606
37. Kadar I. , & Ben-Shahar O. ( 2012 ). A perceptual paradigm and psychophysical evidence for hierarchy in scene gist processing . Journal of vision , 12 ( 13 ), 16 ± 16 . https://doi.org/10.1167/12.13.16 PMID: 23255732
38. Bates , D. , Maechler , M. , & Bolker , B. ( 2011 ). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0 .999375±42) [Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://CRAN.R-project. org/package=lme4
39. R Development Core Team ( 2012 ). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2 .15.0) [Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www. R-project. org.
40. Baayen R. H. , Davidson D. J. , & Bates D. M. ( 2008 ). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items . Journal of Memory and Language , 59 ( 4 ), 390 ± 412 . https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jml. 2007 . 12 .005
41. Thorpe S. J. , Fize D. , & Marlot C. ( 1996 ). Speed of processing in the human visual system . Nature , 381 ( 6582 ), 520 ± 522 . https://doi.org/10.1038/381520a0 PMID: 8632824
42. Oliva A. , & Schyns P. G. ( 2000 ). Diagnostic colors mediate scene recognition . Cognitive Psychology , 41 ( 2 ), 176 ± 210 . https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp. 1999 .0728 PMID: 10968925
43. Goffaux V. , Jacques C. , Mouraux A. , Oliva A. , Schyns P. G. , & Rossion B. ( 2005 ). Diagnostic colours contribute to the early stages of scene categorization: Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence . Visual Cognition , 12 ( 6 ), 878 ± 892 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000562
44. Watson D. , Clark L. A. , & Tellegen A. ( 1988 ). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 ( 6 ), 1063 ± 1070 . https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022 - 3514 . 54 .6.1063 PMID: 3397865
45. Van der Jagt , A. P. N. ( 2014 ). Restorative Environments: Why the Saliency of Natural and Built Scene Content Matters (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from EThOS (uk .bl. ethos.600107)
46. Mullin C. R. , & Steeves J. K. E. ( 2011 ). TMS to the lateral occipital cortex disrupts object processing but facilitates scene processing . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 23 ( 12 ), 4174 ± 4184 . https://doi.org/10. 1162/jocn_a_00095 PMID: 21812554
47. Davenport J. L. , & Potter M. C. ( 2004 ). Scene consistency in object and background perception . Psychological Science , 15 ( 8 ), 559 ± 564 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956- 7976 . 2004 . 00719 . x PMID : 15271002
48. Baddeley R. J. , & Tatler B. W. ( 2006 ). High frequency edges (but not contrast) predict where we fixate: A bayesian system identification analysis . Vision Research , 46 ( 18 ), 2824 ± 2833 . https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.visres. 2006 . 02 .024
49. Krieger G. , Rentschler I. , Hauske G. , Schill K. , & Zetzsche C. ( 2000 ). Object and scene analysis by saccadic eye-movements: An investigation with higher-order statistics . Spatial Vision , 13 ( 2 ±3), 201 ± 214 . https://doi.org/10.1163/156856800741216 PMID: 11198232
50. Berman M. G. , Hout M. C. , Kardan O. , Hunter M. R. , Yourganov G. , Henderson J. M. , Jonides J . ( 2014 ). The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes . PLoS ONE , 9 ( 12 ): e114572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0114572 PMID: 25531411
51. Gulwadi G. B. ( 2006 ). Seeking restorative experiences: Elementary school teachers' choices for places that enable coping with stress . Environment and Behavior , 38 ( 4 ), 503 ± 520 .
52. Kaplan R. ( 2001 ). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits . Environment and Behavior , 33 ( 4 ), 507 ± 542 .
53. Duncan J . ( 1996 ). Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action . In Innui T., & McClelland J. L . (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI (pp . 549 ± 578 ). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
54. Beck D. M. , & Kastner S. ( 2009 ). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain . Vision Research , 49 ( 10 ), 1154 ± 1165 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres. 2008 . 07 .012 PMID: 18694779
55. Corbetta M. , Patel G. , & Shulman G. L. ( 2008 ). The reorienting system of the human brain: From environment to theory of mind . Neuron , 58 ( 3 ), 306 ± 324 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron. 2008 . 04 .017 PMID: 18466742
56. VanRullen R . ( 2003 ). Visual saliency and spike timing in the ventral visual pathway . Journal of PhysiologyÐParis , 97 ( 2 ±3), 365 ± 377 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physparis. 2003 . 09 .010
57. Reynolds J. H. , & Desimone R. ( 2003 ). Interacting roles of attention and visual salience in V4 . Neuron, 37 ( 5 ), 853 ± 863 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896- 6273 ( 03 ) 00097 - 7 PMID: 12628175
58. Kastner S. , & Ungerleider L. G. ( 2000 ). Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex . Annual Review of Neuroscience , 23 ( 1 ), 315 ± 341 .
59. Pearson D.G. , & Craig T. ( 2014 ). The great outdoors? Exploring the mental health benefits of natural environments . Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 1178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2014 .01178 PMID: 25374550