Target integration and the attentional blink

If people monitor a visual stimulus stream for targets they often miss the second (T2) if it appears soon after the first (T1)--the attentional blink. There is one exception: T2 is often not missed if it appears right after T1, i.e., at lag 1. This lag-1 sparing is commonly attributed to the possibility that T1 processing opens an attentional gate, which may be so sluggish that an early T2 can slip in before it closes. We investigated why the gate may close and exclude further stimuli from processing. We compared a control approach, which assumes that gate closing is exogenously triggered by the appearance of nontargets, and an integration approach, which assumes that gate closing is under endogenous control. As predicted by the latter but not the former, T2 performance and target reversals were strongly affected by the temporal distance between T1 and T2, whereas the presence or the absence of a nontarget intervening between T1 and T2 had little impact.     

The attentional blink: A review of data and theory

Under conditions of rapid serial visual presentation, subjects display a reduced ability to report the second of two targets(Target2; T2) in a stream of distractors if it appearswithin200-500 msec of Target 1 (Tl). This effect. known as the attentional blink(AB),has been central in characterizing the limits of humans’ ability to consciously perceive stimuli distributed across time. Here, we review theoretical accounts of the AB and examine how they explain key findings in the literature. We conclude that the AB arises from attentional demands of Tl for selection, working memory encoding, episodic registration,and response selection, which prevents this high-level central resource from being applied to T2 at shortT1-T2 lags. Tl processing also transiently impairs the redeployment of these attentional resources to subsequent targets and the inhibition of distractors that appear in close temporal proximity to T2. Although these findings are consistent with a multifactorial account of the AB,they can also be largely explained by assuming that the activation of these multiple processes depends on a common capacity-limited attentional process for selecting behaviorally relevant events presented among temporally distributed distractors. Thus, at its core, the attentional blink may ultimately reveal the temporal limits of the deployment of selective attention.     

The locus of semantic priming in RSVP target search

At what stage does semantic priming affect accuracy in target search? In two experiments, participants viewed two streams of stimuli, each including a target word among distractors. Stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between the targets (T1 and T2) ranged from 53 to 213 msec. A word semantically related to one or neither of the targets preceded each trial. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to report both targets. Although more primed than unprimed targets were reported, there was no cost for unprimed words. A strong interaction between SOA and T1 versus T2 was found, but priming did not interact with either variable. In Experiment 2, only related targets were reported. Performance was similar to that for primed targets in Experiment 1. Semantic priming does not seem to modulate how attentional resources are initially allocated between targets, but instead affects a later stage of processing, the point at which a target word reaches lexical identification.     

On the saliency of negative stimuli: Evidence from attentional blink1

Abstract: When people are asked to detect two targets from a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream, impairment of recognition of the second target (T2) can be observed if the T2 is presented several hundred milliseconds later than the first target (T1). This phenomenon is known as attentional blink, and is considered to reflect some temporal characteristic of the attentional process. The aim of the present study was to use the attentional blink paradigm to examine whether the affective meaning of the stimuli could affect the magnitude of attentional blink. In Experiment 1, the valence of the T2 (neutral, positive, and negative) was manipulated. Significant T2 detection deficit was observed with neutral and positive T2 but not with negative T2. Experiment 2 demonstrated that non‐significant attentional blink in negative T2 in Experiment 1 could be attributed to the negative affective meaning of T2. Results are discussed in terms of the high saliency of negative information.     

Is all sparing created equal? Comparing lag-1 sparing and extended sparing in temporal object perception

When two targets (T1, T2) are presented amongst a rapid stream of distractors, T2 accuracy is impaired if the targets are separated by at least one distractor (attentional blink). However, this impairment largely disappears if the targets follow one another directly (lag-1 sparing), and, in fact, as many as four or five consecutive targets may be identified quite accurately under these conditions (extended sparing). Although all current models propose a common mechanism for both lag-1 and extended sparing, this hypothesis has yet to be tested. To this end, we examined the effect of various types of attentional switches, known to impact lag-1 sparing, on extended sparing in order to determine whether they would have a similar effect. Results suggested substantial parallels between the two types of sparing. We discuss these results in terms of a unified account of sparing in temporal object perception.     

How the brain blinks: towards a neurocognitive model of the attentional blink

When people monitor a visual stream of rapidly presented stimuli for two targets (T1 and T2), they often miss T2 if it falls into a time window of about half a second after T1 onset-the attentional blink (AB). We provide an overview of recent neuroscientific studies devoted to analyze the neural processes underlying the AB and their temporal dynamics. The available evidence points to an attentional network involving temporal, right-parietal and frontal cortex, and suggests that the components of this neural network interact by means of synchronization and stimulus-induced desynchronization in the beta frequency range. We set up a neurocognitive scenario describing how the AB might emerge and why it depends on the presence of masks and the other event(s) the targets are embedded in. The scenario supports the idea that the AB arises from "biased competition", with the top-down bias being generated by parietal-frontal interactions and the competition taking place between stimulus codes in temporal cortex.     

Modulating the attentional repulsion effect

The attentional repulsion effect refers to the perceived displacement of a visual stimulus in a direction that is opposite to a brief peripheral cue. If the spatial repulsion brought about by peripheral cues is in fact attentional in nature, then attentional manipulations that produce known effects on reaction time should have analogous spatial repulsions effects. Across three experiments, we show that the attentional repulsion effect does indeed mimic results obtained from temporal (i.e., reaction time) attentional tasks, including single onset, offset and onset-offset cue displays (Experiment 1), simultaneous onset and offset displays (Experiment 2), and pop-out color displays (Experiment 3). Thus, the attentional repulsion effect can be modulated by attentional manipulations. Moreover, it appears that attentional processes underlying changes related to when targets are perceived appear to be the same as those underlying changes related to perceiving where targets are.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N = 135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N = 95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

Both exogenous and endogenous target salience manipulations support resource depletion accounts of the attentional blink: A reply to Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009)

Input control theories of the attentional blink (AB) suggest that this deficit results from impaired attentional selection caused by the post-Target 1 (T1) distractor (Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007). Accordingly, these theories predict that there should be no AB when no distractors intervene between the targets. Contrary to these hypotheses, Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) observed an AB (T3 deficit) when three targets, from the same attentional set, were presented successively in a rapid stream of distractors, if subjects increased the resources they devoted to T1 processing. This result is consistent with resource depletion accounts of the AB. However, Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009) argue that Dux et al.’s results can be better explained by the relationship between T1 and T2, and by target discriminability effects, rather than by the relationship between T1 and T3. Here, we find that manipulating the resources subjects devote to T1, either exogenously (target perceptual salience) or endogenously (target task relevance), affects T3 performance, even when T2 and target discriminability differences are controlled for. These results support Dux et al.’s conclusion that T1 resource depletion underlies the AB.     

Does failure to mask T1 cause lag-1 sparing in the attentional blink?

The attentional blink (AB) effect demonstrates that when participants are instructed to report two targets presented in a rapid visual stimuli stream, the second target (T2) is often unable to be reported correctly if presented 200-500 msec after the onset of the first target (T1). However, if T2 is presented immediately after T1, in the conventional lag-1 position (100-msec stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), little or no performance deficit occurs. The present experiments add to the growing literature relating the "lag-1 sparing" effect to T1 masking. Using a canonical AB paradigm, our results demonstrate that T2 performance at lag 1 is significantly reduced in the presence of T1 masking. The implications of this outcome are discussed in relation to theories of the AB.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N?=?135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N?=?95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

反应选项对时序知觉重复启动效应的影响

先前研究采用两项反应任务发现了时序知觉重复启动效应, 这可能是反应选项导致的虚假效应, 本研究采用三项反应任务对此进行了检验。实验1运用三项判断任务以消除缺乏中间选项所致的反应偏向, 结果发现重复启动显著影响“哪个图形先出现”和“两个图形同时出现”的时序判断; 实验2在实验1的基础上对“同时出现”反应选项进行两种指导语操作, 实验结果不仅与实验1一致, 而且“有把握时判断为同时出现”和“有无把握都判断为同时出现”之间没有显著差异, 说明被试能够识别时序加以判断, 不支持反应偏向的前提条件。因此, 时序知觉重复启动效应不是反应选项产生的反应偏向引发的虚假效应, 重复启动对“系列性”和“同时性”时序知觉都存在显著影响。     

The effects of complexity on the perception of vibrotactile patterns presented to separate fingers

Pairs of vibrotactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left middle and index fingerpads (unilateral presentation) or left and right index fingerpads (bilateral presentation), using two Optacon arrays. A set of simple (one-line) patterns and a set of complex (two-line) patterns were constructed sothat they were equally identifiable when presented individually. In Experiment 1, discrimination performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. Communality, the number of lines that two patterns share in common, was a major factor in reducing discrimination performance for two-line patterns. Subjects’ abilities to identify one member of the pair of patterns were measured in Experiment 2. There were no significant differences in performance between pattern sets or type of presentation when subjects attended to a single pattern. However, when subjects were required to attend to both patterns, identification performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. The results suggest that there are limited attentional resources for processing vibrotactile patterns and that more resources are available bilaterally than are available unilaterally.     

The role of the magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in the attentional blink

The attentional blink refers to the transient impairment in perceiving the 2nd of two targets presented in close temporal proximity in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect on human attentional-blink performance of disrupting the function of the magnocellular pathway--a major visual-processing pathway specialized in temporal segregation. The study was motivated by recent theories that relate the attentional blink to the limited temporal resolution of attentional responses, and by a number of poorly understood empirical findings, including the effects on the attentional blink of luminance adaptation and distraction. The attentional blink was assessed for stimuli on a red background (Experiment 1), stimuli on an equiluminant background (Experiment 2), and following flicker or motion adaptation (Experiment 3), three psychophysical manipulations known to disrupt magnocellular function. Contrary to our expectations, the attentional blink was not affected by these manipulations, suggesting no specific relationship between the attentional blink and magnocellular and/or parvocellular processing.     

Prior entry explains order reversals in the attentional blink

When two targets are presented in rapid succession, the first target (T1) is usually identified, but the second target (T2) is often missed. A remarkable exception to this "attentional blink" occurs when T2 immediately follows the first T1, at lag 1. It is then often spared but reported in the wrong order--that is, before T1. These order reversals have led to the hypothesis that "lag 1 sparing" occurs because the two targets merge into a single episodic representation. Here, we report evidence consistent with an alternative theory: T2 receives more attention than T1, leading to prior entry into working memory. Two experiments showed that the more T2 performance exceeded that for T1, the more order reversals were made. Furthermore, precuing T1 led to a shift in performance benefits from T2 to T1 and to an equivalent reduction in order reversals. We conclude that it is not necessary to assume episodic integration to explain lag 1 sparing or the accompanying order reversals.     

The effects of complexity on the perception of vibrotactile patterns presented to separate fingers.

Pairs of vibrotactile patterns were presented to subjects' left middle and index fingerpads (unilateral presentation) or left and right index fingerpads (bilateral presentation), using two Optacon arrays. A set of simple (one-line) patterns and a set of complex (two-line) patterns were constructed so that they were equally identifiable when presented individually. In Experiment 1, discrimination performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. Communality, the number of lines that two patterns share in common, was a major factor in reducing discrimination performance for two-line patterns. Subjects' abilities to identify one member of the pair of patterns were measured in Experiment 2. There were no significant differences in performance between pattern sets or type of presentation when subjects attended to a single pattern. However, when subjects were required to attend to both patterns, identification performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. The results suggest that there are limited attentional resources for processing vibrotactile patterns and that more resources are available bilaterally than are available unilaterally.     

Temporal selection is suppressed, delayed, and diffused during the attentional blink

How does temporal selection work, and along what dimensions does it vary from one instance to the next? We explored these questions using a phenomenon in which temporal selection goes awry. In the attentional blink, subjects fail to report the second of a pair of targets (T1 and T2) when they are presented at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of roughly 200 to 500 ms. We directly tested the properties of temporal selection during the blink by analyzing distractor intrusions at a fast rate of item presentation. Our analysis shows that attentional selection is (a) suppressed, (b) delayed, and (c) diffused in time during the attentional blink. These effects are dissociated by their time course: The measure of each effect returns to the baseline value at a different SOA. Our results constrain theories of the attentional blink and indicate that temporal selection varies along at least three dissociable dimensions: efficacy, latency, and precision.     

The attentional blink with targets in different spatial locations

When two targets (T1 and T2) are displayed in rapid succession, accuracy of T2 identification varies as a function of the temporal lag between the targets (attentional blink, AB). In some studies, performance has been found to be most impaired at Lag 1—namely, when T2 followed T1 directly. In other studies, T2 performance at Lag 1 has been virtually unimpaired (Lag 1 sparing). In the present work, we examined how Lag 1 sparing is affected by attentional switches between targets displayed in the same location or in different locations. We found that Lag 1 sparing does not occur when a spatial shift is required between T1 and T2. This suggests that attention cannot be switched to a new location while the system is busy processing another stimulus. The results are explained by a modified version of an attentional gating model (Chun & Potter, 1995; Shapiro & Raymond, 1994).     

Task- and location-switching effects on visual attention

In two experiments, we examined the effects of task and location switching on the accuracy of reporting target characters in an attentional blink (AB) paradigm. Single-character streams were presented at a rate of 100 msec per character in Experiment 1, and successive pairs of characters on either side of fixation were presented in Experiment 2. On each trial, two targets appeared that were either white letters or black digits embedded in a stream of black letter distractors, and they were separated by between zero and five items in the stream (lags 1-6). Experiment 1 showed that report of the first target was least accurate if it immediately preceded the second target and if the two targets were either both letters or both digits (task repetition cost). Report of the second target was least accurate if one or two distractors intervened between the two targets (the U-shaped AB lag effect) and if one target was a letter and the other a digit (task switch cost). Experiment 2 added location uncertainty as a factor and showed similar effects as Experiment 1, with one exception. Lag 1 sparing (the preserved accuracy in reporting the second of two targets if the second immediately follows the first) was completely eliminated when the task required attention switching across locations. Two-way additive effects were found between task switching and location switching in the AB paradigm. These results suggests separate loci for their attentional effects. It is likely that the AB deficit is due mainly to central memory limitations, whereas location-switching costs occur at early visual levels. Task-switching costs occur at an intermediate visual level, since the present task switch involved encoding differences without changes in stimulus-response mapping rules (i.e., the task was character identification for both letters and digits).