Object file continuity predicts attentional blink magnitude

When asked to identify targets embedded within a rapid consecutive stream of visual stimuli, observers are less able to identify the second target (T2) when it is presented within half a second of the first (T1); this deficit has been termed the attentional blink (AB). Rapid serial visual presentation methodology was used to investigate the relationship between the AB and object files (episodic representations implicated in object identification and perceptual constancy). An inverse linear relationship was found between the degree of object file continuity and AB magnitude. An important locus of object file continuity was the intervening stream items between T1 and T2. The results are discussed in terms of the heuristic of the object file to preserve limited attentional capacity.     

Cuing and stimulus probability effects on the P3 and the AB

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relation between the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200-500 ms after the first, and the P3 component of the event-related potential. Consistent with the view that the AB reflects a limited ability to consolidate information in working memory and that the P3 reflects working memory updating, increasing the amplitude of the P3 elicited by a first target (T1) by varying T1 probability (Experiment 1) or T1 cue validity (Experiment 2) led to an increase of the AB. Overall, the P3 elicited by T1 was greater when T2 was not identified than when it was. However, the correlation between P3 and AB magnitude across participants was not significant, leaving open the question of how direct the relationship between the P3 and the AB is.     

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.     

Rapid serial visual distraction: task-irrelevant items can produce an attentional blink

When two sequential targets (T1 and T2) are presented within about 600 msec, perception of the second target is impaired. This attentional blink (AB) has been studied by means of two paradigms: rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), in which targets are embedded in a stream of central distractors, and the two-target paradigm, in which targets are presented eccentrically without distractors. We examined the role of distractors in the AB, using a modified two-target paradigm with a central stream of task-irrelevant distractors. In six experiments, the RSVP stream of distractors substantially impaired identification of both T1 and T2, but only when the distractors shared common characteristics with the targets. Without such commonalities, the distractors had no effect on performance. This points to the subjects' attentional control setting as an important factor in the AB deficit and suggests a conceptual link between the AB and a form of nonspatial contingent capture attributable to distractor processing.     

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the finding that the perception of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented in close temporal proximity to the first target (T1). An exception to this deficit occurs when T2 immediately follows T1, an effect referred to as lag 1 sparing. So far, it has been unclear whether the AB is location specific or nonspatial in nature. Most demonstrations of an AB across different locations have shown an absence of lag 1 sparing, due to accompanying spatial switch costs. This means that the AB pattern itself may be explained through such switch costs. In this study, to minimize spatial switch costs, attention was made to move continuously across multiple locations by aid of a cue. An AB across different locations was found, including lag 1 sparing. We conclude that the AB and lag 1 sparing are not tied to a location but represent a central deficit, in line with current theory.     

Different attentional blink tasks reflect distinct information processing limitations: an individual differences approach

To study the temporal dynamics and capacity-limits of attentional selection and encoding, researchers often employ the attentional blink (AB) phenomenon: subjects' impaired ability to report the second of two targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream that appear within 200-500 ms of one another. The AB has now been the subject of hundreds of scientific investigations, and a variety of different dual-target RSVP paradigms have been employed to study this failure of consciousness. The three most common are those where targets are defined categorically from distractors; those where target definition is based on featural information; and those where there is a set switch between T1 and T2, with the first target typically being featurally defined and T2 requiring a detection or discrimination judgment (probe task). An almost universally held assumption across all AB theories is that these three tasks measure the same deficit; however here, using an individual differences approach, we demonstrate that AB magnitude is only related across categorical and featural tasks. Thus, these paradigms appear to reflect a distinct cognitive limitation from that observed under set-switch conditions.     

Task switching mediates the attentional blink even without backward masking

When two targets are presented in rapid succession, perception of the second target is impaired at short intertarget lags (100-700 msec). This attentional blink (AB) is thought to occur only when the second target is backward masked. To the contrary, we show that task switching between the targets can produce an AB even without masking (Experiments 1 and 3). Further, we show that task switching produces an AB only when the second target does not belong to a class of overlearned stimuli such as letters or digits (Experiments 1 and 4). When the second target is masked, however, an AB is invariably obtained regardless of switching or overlearning. We propose that task switching involves a time-consuming process of reconfiguration of the visual system, during which the representation of the second target decays beyond recognition, resulting in an AB deficit. We suggest that overlearned stimuli are encoded in a form that, while maskable, decays relatively slowly, thus outlasting the delay due to reconfiguration and avoiding the AB deficit.     

Direction of association between targets in a RSVP task influences priming at very short but not long SOAs

When two targets are presented using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) and the interval between the targets is 200–500 ms, detection or identification of the second target is impaired. This impairment in second target report is known as the attentional blink (AB). This study sought to examine the impact of the direction of target association on priming during an AB task using very short and long SOAs. Two experiments were conducted using dual-stream RSVP tasks and targets that either shared an associative relationship or were unrelated to one another. The direction of association between the targets was also varied so that associatively related targets were presented in the forward (strongest association from target 1 to target 2) or backward directions of association (strongest association from target 2 to target 1). In Experiment 1 very short SOAs between targets (27–213 ms) were used. Priming was evident at the same SOAs for both targets presented in the backward direction of association. However, for targets presented in the forward direction of association, priming occurred for target 1 and target 2 at different SOAs. Experiment 2 used longer SOAs between targets (107 to 535 ms) and it was determined that while direction of association between the targets did not affect priming, there was a larger priming effect for target 2 than for target 1. The results of the two experiments indicate that direction of association between targets influences priming in RSVP tasks that use very short but not long SOAs. The results are discussed in relation to the two-stage response competition model of Potter et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:1149–1162, 2002).     

Perceptual load modulates the processing of distractors presented at task-irrelevant locations during the attentional blink

The distribution of attention in both space and time is critical for processing our dynamic environment. Studies of spatial attention suggest that the distribution of attention is decreased when the perceptual load of a task increases, resulting in decreased processing of task-irrelevant distractors. Studies of the attentional blink (AB) suggest that the temporal distribution of attention also influences distractor processing, such that distractor processing increases during the AB relative to outside the AB (Jiang & Chun, 2001). Two experiments are reported in which the extent to which the difficulty of the first target task (T1) modulates the processing of task-irrelevant distractors during the AB was tested. To investigate this issue, both the first and second target tasks (T1 and T2) required identifying a central stimulus that was flanked by low-load or high-load distractors. Consistent with previous studies of the AB, there was evidence of more distractor processing during the AB than outside the AB. Critically, however, the interference caused by distractors presented simultaneously with T2 during the AB was reduced when T1 perceptual load was high relative to when it was low. These results suggest that increasing T1 perceptual load decreases distractor processing during the AB and that perceptual processes influence both the temporal and spatial distribution of attention.     

A bottleneck in face identification: repetition priming from flanker images

There is evidence that face processing is capacity-limited in distractor interference tasks and in tasks requiring overt recognition memory. We examined whether capacity limits for faces can be observed with a more sensitive measure of visual processing, by measuring repetition priming of flanker faces that were presented alongside a face or a nonface target. In Experiment 1, we found identity priming for face flankers, by measuring repetition priming across a change in image, during task-relevant nonface processing, but not during the processing of a concurrently-presented face target. Experiment 2 showed perceptual priming of the flanker faces, across identical images at prime and test, when they were presented alongside a face target. In a third Experiment, all of these effects were replicated by measuring identity priming and perceptual priming within the same task. Overall, these results imply that face processing is capacity limited, such that only a single face can be identified at one time. Merely attending to a target face appears sufficient to trigger these capacity limits, thereby extinguishing identification of a second face in the display, although our results demonstrate that the additional face remains at least subject to superficial image processing.     

Representational masking and the attentional blink

After successful detection of a target item within a stream of rapidly displayed visual stimuli, subsequent detection of an additional target is impaired for roughly 500 ms. This impairment is known as the “attentional blink” (AB). Previous studies have found that if either the first (Tl; Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992) or second target (T2; Giesbrecht & Di Lollo, 1998) is not followed by a mask, the AB impairment is significantly reduced. Whereas low-level perceptual factors have been found to influence the efficacy of masking in the AB (e.g., Seiffert & Di Lollo, 1997), the current experiment used a higher level (representational) manipulation, i.e., repetition blindness to reduce the efficacy of target masking in the AB. These findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that masking plays more than a perceptual role in the AB phenomenon.     

The attentional blink: Increasing target salience provides no evidence for resource depletion. A commentary on Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008)

The authors have argued elsewhere that the attentional blink (AB; i.e., reduced target detection shortly after presentation of an earlier target) arises from blocked or disrupted perceptual input in response to distractors presented between the targets. When targets replace the intervening distractors, so that three targets (T1, T2, and T3) are presented sequentially, performance on T2 and T3 improves. Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) argued that T3 performance improves at the expense of T1, and thus provides evidence for resource depletion. They showed that when T1 is made more salient (and presumably draws more resources), an AB for T3 appears to reemerge. These findings can be better explained, however, by (1) the relationship between T1 and T2 (not T1 and T3) and (2) differential salience for T3 in the long-lag condition of Dux et al.’s study. In conclusion, the Dux et al. study does not present a severe challenge to input control theories of the AB.     

Relationships between attentional blink magnitude, RSVP target accuracy, and performance on other cognitive tasks

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately half a second of each other, performance on the second target (T2) suffers, relative to when the targets are presented further apart in time or when the first target (T1) can be ignored. This pattern of results is known as the attentional blink (AB). Typically, participants differ with respect to the magnitude of their AB and their overall target accuracy. Despite investigations as to what participant characteristics may influence AB performance (e.g., age, brain damage, or mood state), there has been no focused examination of whether individual differences in cognitive performance measures predict the magnitude of the AB or overall rapid serial visual presentation(RSVP) target accuracy. Our university studentparticipants performed single-target and dual-target RSVP tasks, as well as a selection of cognitive tasks that did not use RSVP presentations, with color, letter, digit, and object stimuli. Overall performance on each of the RSVP targets (T1, T2, and single target) was predicted by speeded manual and vocal identification times to isolated stimuli and by performance with other RSVP targets. However, the magnitude of the AB was predicted only by T1 accuracy, not by any other performance measures. The results suggest that individual differences in AB magnitude do not result from differences in effective RSVP target encoding and are not well explained by varied information-processing abilities.     

Voluntary triggering of the first target attenuates the attentional blink

The term attentional blink (AB) refers to a failure in identifying the second of two targets, separated by less than 500?ms, embedded in a rapid succession of nontargets. To examine whether the expectation of the onset of the first target affects the AB, we compared the magnitudes of the AB deficit when participants triggered the appearance of the first target and when the target was presented automatically at some time point, as in traditional AB studies. In Experiment 1, the first target appeared immediately after a participant's voluntary keypress, revealing that the accuracy for identifying the first target increased and that the AB deficit was attenuated. In Experiment 2, the temporal delay between a voluntary keypress and the first-target presentation was manipulated. The results showed that both targets could be reported accurately only when the first target was presented within 300?ms after the action. In Experiment 3, we ruled out an alternative explanation that would attribute the facilitation effect to mere physical movement, by examining the accuracy of target identification when participants voluntarily pressed a key but that action was unrelated to the onset of the first target. Taken together, the results suggest that voluntary action to trigger the onset of a visual target facilitates processing and reduces the subsequent AB deficit when the target appears within 300?ms of the action.     

Concurrency benefits in the attentional blink: Attentional flexibility and shifts of decision criteria

Fundamental limitations in performing multiple tasks concurrently are well illustrated by the attentional blink (AB) deficit, which refers to the difficulty in reporting a second target (T2) when it is presented shortly after a first target (T1). Surprisingly, recent studies have shown that the AB, which is often thought of as a manifestation of capacity limitations in central processing, can be reduced when the AB task is performed simultaneously with concurrent distracting activities. In the present study, we sought to investigate whether such concurrency benefits would also be observed when the AB task was performed concurrently with a central demanding timing task. The AB was reduced under concurrent-task conditions, as compared with single-AB-task conditions, even though T1 performance was unaffected by the concurrent task. Moreover, shifts in decision criteria were found to be associated with the concurrency benefit effect.     

Is the attentional blink effect located in short-term memory?

The attentional blink (AB) effect is characterized by a failure to detect a second target following the identification of a previous target in a RSVP stream. This effect has been attributed to capacity limitations at a central level of visual information processes. Postperceptual models suppose that the AB locus is located in short-term memory. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the influence of a short-term memory deficit on the AB effect in a patient with such a deficit. The three main results of this study are (1) the persistence of an AB effect, (2) a large number of T1 missed identifications and (3) a T2 detection deficit for a specific delay (367 ms). These results indicate that a short-term memory deficit disrupts the processing of each target (T1 and T2) but does not product an abolition of the AB effect.     

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.     

Attentional and perceptual sources of the auditory attentional blink

When a rapid succession of auditory stimuli is listened to, processing of the second of two successive targets among fillers is often impaired, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB). Three experiments were conducted to examine the role of filler items in modulating the size of the auditory AB, using a two-alternative forced choice discrimination paradigm. In the first experiment, dual-stream presentations in which low- and high-pitch items were separated by six semitones were tested. A transient deficit in reporting the probe was observed in the presence of fillers that was greater when fillers were in the same stream as the probe. In the absence of a filler, there was a residual deficit, but this was not related to the time lag between the target and the probe. In the second and third experiments, in which single-stream presentations were used, a typical AB was found in the presence of homogeneous fillers, but heterogeneous fillers tended to produce a greater deficit. In the absence of a filler, there was little or no evidence of a blink. The pattern of results suggests that other attentional and perceptual factors contribute to the blink.     

Mere presence of distractors: Another determining factor for the attentional blink1

Abstract: When two visual targets are presented in rapid succession, perception of the second target is deteriorated if the temporal lag between the two targets is short (0–300 ms). This ‘attentional blink’ (AB) phenomenon has been believed to occur only when the second target is followed by a backward mask or when there is a task switching between two targets. The present study revealed another determining factor for the occurrence of the AB, the presence or absence of a distractor stream. Five experiments examined the effect of possible confounding factors in the extant literature and suggested that the mere presence of a distractor stream affects the processing of targets even when the observers tried to ignore them, resulting in a processing delay. This effect is discussed in a model of AB deficit in terms of decay of the second target's representation.