Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately 500 msec of each other, accurate report of the second target (T2) suffers more than when targets are presented farther apart in time--an attentional blink (AB). In the present study, the AB was found to be larger when taboo words were presented as a first target (T1), as compared with the AB found when emotionally neutral, negative, or positive words were presented as T1, suggesting that taboo words received preferential attentional processing. Comparable results were also obtained when taboo words were presented as to-be-ignored distractors in single-target rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Arousal, but not valence, ratings of the emotional words predicted accuracy on subsequent targets in both dual- and single-task RSVP. Recognition memory for taboo words accounted fully for the negative relationships between arousal ratings and accuracy on subsequent targets, suggesting that arousal-triggered changes in attentional allocation influenced encoding of taboo words at the time they were encountered.     

Delayed attentional engagement in the attentional blink

Observers often miss the 2nd of 2 visual targets (first target [T1] and second target [T2]) when these targets are presented closely in time; the attentional blink (AB). The authors hypothesized that the AB occurs because the attentional response to T2 is delayed by T1 processing, causing T2 to lose a competition for attention to the item that follows it. The authors investigated this hypothesis by determining whether the AB is attenuated when T2 is precued. The results from 4 experiments showed that the duration and magnitude of the AB were substantially reduced when T2 was precued. The observed improvement in T2 report did not occur at the expense of T1 report, suggesting that processing of T1 was already completed or was at least protected when the cue was presented. The authors conclude that, during the AB, there is a delay between detection and the selection of target candidates for consolidation in short-term memory.     

Dissociating the effects of featural and conceptual interference on multiple target processing in rapid serial visual presentation

Attentional blink (AB) describes the finding that, when subjects attend to a specified target in a rapidly presented visual stream, they show a decreased ability to process a subsequent probe item for up to 600 msec. In the present study, the roles of featural and conceptual interference in the processing of targets and probes in a rapid serial visual presentation stream were examined. In Experiment 1, featurally more complex T + 1 items produced larger AB even when the physical energy of the stimulus (e.g., the number of pixels) was held constant. In Experiment 2, the conceptual category of the T + 1 item affected target identification but not AB magnitude. These result suggest that featural interference is a major determinant of AB magnitude, whereas featural and conceptual interference both affect target identification.     

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.     

Do emotion-induced blindness and the attentional blink share underlying mechanisms? An event-related potential study of emotionally-arousing words

When two targets are presented within approximately 500 ms of each other in the context of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), participants’ ability to report the second target is reduced compared to when the targets are presented further apart in time. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). The AB is increased in magnitude when the first target is emotionally arousing. Emotionally arousing stimuli can also capture attention and create an AB-like effect even when these stimuli are presented as to-be-ignored distractor items in a single-target RSVP task. This phenomenon is known as emotion-induced blindness (EIB). The phenomenological similarity in the behavioral results associated with the AB with an emotional T1 and EIB suggest that these effects may result from similar underlying mechanisms – a hypothesis that we tested using event-related electrical brain potentials (ERPs). Behavioral results replicated those reported previously, demonstrating an enhanced AB following an emotionally arousing target and a clear EIB effect. In both paradigms highly arousing taboo/sexual words resulted in an increased early posterior negativity (EPN) component that has been suggested to represent early semantic activation and selection for further processing in working memory. In both paradigms taboo/sexual words also produced an increased late positive potential (LPP) component that has been suggested to represent consolidation of a stimulus in working memory. Therefore, ERP results provide evidence that the EIB and emotion-enhanced AB effects share a common underlying mechanism.     

Memory reloaded: Memory load effects in the attentional blink

When two targets are presented in rapid succession, identification of the first is nearly perfect, while identification of the second is impaired when it follows the first by less than about 700 ms. According to bottleneck models, this attentional blink (AB) occurs because the second target is unable to gain access to capacity-limited working memory processes already occupied by the first target. Evidence for this hypothesis, however, has been mixed, with recent reports suggesting that increasing working memory load does not affect the AB. The present paper explores possible reasons for failures to find a link between memory load and the AB and shows that a reliable effect of load can be obtained when the item directly after T1 (Target 1) is omitted. This finding provides initial evidence that working memory load can influence the AB and additional evidence for a link between T1 processing time and the AB predicted by bottleneck models.     

Cross-modality attentional blinks without preparatory task-set switching

When two masked targets (T1 and T2), both requiring attention, are presented within half a second of each other, report of the second target is poor, demonstrating an attentional blink (AB). Potter, Chun, Banks, and Muckenhoupt (1998) argued that all previous demonstrations of an AB occurring when one or more targets were presented outside the visual modality did not represent true AB but were, instead, artifactual, resulting from switching of task set. In the present experiments, T1 and T2 modalities were independent and varied randomly from trial to trial, allowing no useful preparatory task-set switching from T1 to T2. However, reliable ABs were observed when both targets were visual, when both targets were auditory, and cross-modally when T2s were visual. Furthermore, the ABs observed for crossmodality visual T2s showed the characteristic U-shaped pattern often found in AB experiments in which two visual targets are used—a pattern that should not be observed under task-set switching conditions. These results provide evidence that cross-modality AB can be found under conditions that do not allow useful preparatory task-set switching.     

Executive control processes of working memory predict attentional blink magnitude over and above storage capacity

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 phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). Colzato et al. (Psychon Bull Rev 14:1051–1057, 2007) used an individual differences approach to examine whether individual AB magnitude was predicted by individual differences in working memory (WM), using the operation span paradigm (OSPAN). They found that OSPAN score was inversely related to AB magnitude even when a fluid intelligence measure (Raven’s SPM) was partialled out. However, it is not clear from this study whether it was the executive control aspect of working memory, the capacity aspect of short-term memory, (or both), that related to AB magnitude. In the present study we used a variety of WM measures that required varying degrees of executive control. OSPAN was negatively related to AB magnitude with Raven’s SPM, reading comprehension, reading rate, and digit forward and backward partialled out. Backward and forward digit span did not predict AB magnitude. These results support the conclusion that a “working” executive component of WM predicts temporal limitations of selective attention beyond static STM capacity and general cognitive ability.     

Summary statistics in the attentional blink

We used the attentional blink (AB) paradigm to investigate the processing stage at which extraction of summary statistics from visual stimuli (“ensemble coding”) occurs. Experiment 1 examined whether ensemble coding requires attentional engagement with the items in the ensemble. Participants performed two sequential tasks on each trial: gender discrimination of a single face (T1) and estimating the average emotional expression of an ensemble of four faces (or of a single face, as a control condition) as T2. Ensemble coding was affected by the AB when the tasks were separated by a short temporal lag. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks was reversed to test whether ensemble coding requires more working-memory resources, and therefore induces a larger AB, than estimating the expression of a single face. Each condition produced a similar magnitude AB in the subsequent gender-discrimination T2 task. Experiment 3 additionally investigated whether the previous results were due to participants adopting a subsampling strategy during the ensemble-coding task. Contrary to this explanation, we found different patterns of performance in the ensemble-coding condition and a condition in which participants were instructed to focus on only a single face within an ensemble. Taken together, these findings suggest that ensemble coding emerges automatically as a result of the deployment of attentional resources across the ensemble of stimuli, prior to information being consolidated in working memory.     

Negative attentional set in the attentional blink: control is not lost

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the finding that performance on the second of two targets (T1 and T2) in a rapidly presented stimulus stream is impaired when the targets are presented within 200-500 ms. This study investigates whether a negative attentional set, a form of top-down control, has an additional detrimental effect, and whether its influence is modulated by task demands. A negative attentional set was elicited through presentation of a pre-T1 distractor (D1), which belonged to the same category as T2. The presence of D1 impaired T2 performance, and this negative effect was generally larger inside than outside the AB. Moreover, this D1 effect remained constant or was augmented when the demand on T1 processing was enhanced. These findings demonstrate that a negative attentional set is maintained even though the central system is engaged in the in-depth processing of T1 during the AB.     

The contents of visual working memory reduce uncertainty during visual search

Information held in visual working memory (VWM) influences the allocation of attention during visual search, with targets matching the contents of VWM receiving processing benefits over those that do not. Such an effect could arise from multiple mechanisms: First, it is possible that the contents of working memory enhance the perceptual representation of the target. Alternatively, it is possible that when a target is presented among distractor items, the contents of working memory operate postperceptually to reduce uncertainty about the location of the target. In both cases, a match between the contents of VWM and the target should lead to facilitated processing. However, each effect makes distinct predictions regarding set-size manipulations; whereas perceptual enhancement accounts predict processing benefits regardless of set size, uncertainty reduction accounts predict benefits only with set sizes larger than 1, when there is uncertainty regarding the target location. In the present study, in which briefly presented, masked targets were presented in isolation, there was a negligible effect of the information held in VWM on target discrimination. However, in displays containing multiple masked items, information held in VWM strongly affected target discrimination. These results argue that working memory representations act at a postperceptual level to reduce uncertainty during visual search.     

Evidence for mental ability related individual differences in the attentional blink obtained by an analysis of the P300 component

Attentional blink (AB) refers to impaired identification of a target (T2) when this target follows a preceding target (T1) after about 150-450 ms within a stream of rapidly presented stimuli. Previous research on a possible relation between AB and mental ability (MA) turned out to be highly ambiguous. The present study investigated MA-related individual differences in consolidation of T2 in working memory during the AB as indicated by the P300 component of the event-related potential. Thirty high (HA) and 30 low MA (LA) female participants performed an AB task while their brain activity was recorded. The AB did not differ between the two groups. HA individuals exhibited a larger P300 amplitude and longer P300 latencies during the AB suggesting higher mental effort. This higher mental effort, however, did not result in better performance presumably because of more competition between target and distractor stimuli in HA than LA individuals.     

The attentional blink is susceptible to concurrent perceptual processing demands

In a rapid serial visual presentation stream processing of a first target (T1) impairs detection or identification of a second target (T2) that appears within 500 ms after T1. This effect characterizes the so-called attentional blink (AB). To evaluate contemporary information-processing accounts of the AB phenomenon in terms of the underlying processing mechanisms the present study examined the potential influence of Task 1 difficulty on the AB effect. To this end, T1 contrast and T1 response requirements were systematically varied across four experiments. Experiment 1 ruled out a mere sensory basis of the contrast manipulation on T2 performance. When only T2 had to be reported (Experiment 2) an AB effect occurred that was slightly modulated by T1 contrast. When report of both T1 and T2 was required in a standard AB task (Experiment 3), the magnitude of the AB depended to a larger extent on stimulus contrast, and it increased further when speeded T1 choice responses were additionally required (Experiment 4). On the basis of the present impact of Task 1 difficulty on the AB effect we conclude that processing limitations cause the AB phenomenon. We discuss such limitations in terms of perceptual (T1 consolidation) and central (response selection) bottleneck processes.     

Short-term memory and the attentional blink: Capacity versus content

When people monitor the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of 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, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB). We found that overall performance in an RSVP task was impaired by a concurrent short-term memory (STM) task and, furthermore, that this effect increased when STM load was higher and when its content was more task relevant. Loading visually defined stimuli and adding articulatory suppression further impaired performance on the RSVP task, but the size of the AB over time (i.e., T1-T2 lag) remained unaffected by load or content. This suggested that at least part of the performance in an RSVP task reflects interference between competing codes within STM, as interference models have held, whereas the AB proper reflects capacity limitations in the transfer to STM, as consolidation models have claimed.     

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.     

Attentional blink magnitude is predicted by the ability to keep irrelevant material out of working memory

Participants have difficulty in reporting the second of two masked targets if the second target is presented within 500 ms of the first target—an attentional blink (AB). Individual participants differ in the magnitude of their AB. The present study employed an individual differences design and two visual working memory tasks to examine whether visual working memory capacity and/or the ability to exclude irrelevant information from visual working memory (working memory filtering efficiency) could predict individual differences in the AB. Visual working memory capacity was positively related to filtering efficiency, but did not predict AB magnitude. However, the degree to which irrelevant stimuli were admitted into visual working memory (i.e., poor filtering efficiency) was positively correlated with AB magnitude over and above visual working memory capacity. Good filtering efficiency may benefit the AB by not allowing irrelevant RSVP distractors to gain access to working memory.     

Goal-completion processes affect the attentional blink

People are notably limited in processing information from the outside world. For instance, they frequently fail to identify the second of two targets presented in close succession (attentional blink, AB). Theories of the AB have mostly focused upon early stimuli processing. However, here we show that late, goal-completion processes play an important role. We report findings from a rapid serial visual presentation task with three targets (T1, T2, and T3). Participants set to achieve one single goal for T1 and T2 (reporting the sum of the two), and to detect T3, showed an AB effect upon T3 but not upon T2, while participants set to achieve separate goals for the three targets showed an AB effect upon both T2 and T3. This finding raises questions about the nature of AB, suggesting that theories of the AB must take into account processes involved in goal switching.     

Evidence against a central bottleneck during the attentional blink: multiple channels for configural and featural processing

When a visual target is identified, there is a period of several hundred milliseconds when the processing of subsequent targets is impaired, a phenomenon labeled the attentional blink (AB). The emerging consensus is that the identification of a visual target temporarily occupies a limited attentional resource that is essential for all visual perception. The present results challenge this view. With the same digit discrimination task that impaired subsequent letter discrimination for several hundred milliseconds, we found no disruption of subsequent face discrimination. These results suggest that all stimuli do not compete for access to a single resource for visual perception. We propose a multi-channel account of interference in the AB paradigm.     

The role of spatial switching in the attentional blink

The attentional blink (AB) is a well-established paradigm in which identification of a target T2 is reduced shortly after presentation of an earlier target T1. An important question concerns the importance of backward masking during the AB. While task switching has been found to be a strong modulator mediating the AB without any masking of T2, the present study investigated whether spatial switching could similarly produce an AB without masking. Using a spatial AB paradigm in which items appeared at different locations; we found (a) a significant AB without backward masking of T2 but no AB when no distractors followed T2, (b) no evidence for Lag 1 sparing. These findings show that when there is a spatial switch between the targets, presenting the distractor following T2 at the same location than T2 (backward masking) is not a necessary condition for the AB to occur, but T2 has to be followed by surrounding distractors (appearing at different locations than T2). This pattern of data confirms that spatial switching is a robust modulator of the AB, but to a less extent than task switching.     

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.