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.     

Individual differences in dispositional focus of attention predict attentional blink magnitude

When identifying two targets presented in a rapid serial visual presentation stream, one’s accuracy on the second target is reduced if it is presented shortly (within 500 msec) after the first target—an attentional blink (AB). Individuals differ greatly in the size of their AB. One way to learn about the AB is to understand what underlies these individual differences. Recent studies have suggested that when a broadened or diffused attentional state is induced, the AB deficit can be attenuated. The present study examined whether natural (dispositional) individual differences in focus and diffusion of attention as assessed by the global/local task could predict performance on the AB task. Performance that was consistent with diffusion correlated negatively with AB size, and performance that was consistent with focusing correlated positively with AB size, showing that dispositional focus and diffusion of attention can predict individual differences in the AB. These findings are consistent with the Olivers and Nieuwenhuis (2006) overinvestment hypothesis.     

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.     

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.     

Too much control can hurt: A threaded cognition model of the attentional blink

Explanations for the attentional blink (AB; a deficit in identifying the second of two targets when presented 200-500 ms after the first) have recently shifted from limitations in memory consolidation to disruptions in cognitive control. With a new model based on the threaded cognition theory of multi-tasking we propose a different explanation: the AB is produced by an overexertion of control. This overexertion is produced by a production rule that blocks target detection during memory consolidation. In addition to fitting many known effects in the literature, the model predicts that adding certain secondary tasks will decrease the AB. In Experiment 1, a secondary task is added to the AB task in which participants have to respond to a moving dot. As predicted, AB decreases. Experiment 2 expands this result by controlling for learning, and adds a second variation, rotating the first target. For this variation the model predicts an increase in AB, which is indeed what we found.     

An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: Evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts

Several accounts of the attentional blink (AB) have postulated that this dual-target deficit occurs because of limited-capacity attentional resources being devoted to processing the first target at the expense of the second (resource depletion accounts; e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995). Recent accounts have challenged this model (e.g., Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007), proposing instead that the AB occurs because of subjects’ inability to maintain appropriate levels of attentional control when targets are separated by distractors. Accordingly, the AB is eliminated when three targets from the same attentional set are presented sequentially in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream. However, under such conditions poorer identification of the first target is typically observed, hinting at a potential trade-off between the first and subsequent target performances. Consistent with this hypothesis, the present study shows that an AB is observed for successive targets from the same attentional set in an RSVP stream when the first target powerfully captures attention. These results suggest that resource depletion contributes significantly to the AB.     

Attentional limitations in processing sequentially presented vibrotactile targets

In seven experiments, participants experienced rapid, serially presented streams of vibrations and responded to specific targets in the streams. In visual (and sometimes auditory) streams presented in this manner, it is typical to find a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when both must be reported and the second appears within a short temporal interval of the first, but not when identical displays are presented but only the second target must be reported (e.g., the attentional blink, or AB). This conventional AB pattern was found in the last experiment, in which judgments were about target location. However in the first six experiments reported here, in which judgments were about frequency, intensity, duration, or location of targets, accuracy was dependent on target separation regardless of whether or not the first target was reported. This unconventional pattern could represent an AB if the first target was attended even when it was not reported. The evidence for this claim and an alternative possibility that location judgments are especially sensitive to attention manipulations are discussed.     

Minds on the blink: The relationship between inattentional blindness and attentional blink

Failures of conscious visual awareness occur when specific task demands prevent an observer from detecting a stimulus that would otherwise be clearly visible. Two examples are inattentional blindness (IB) and attentional blink (AB). IB is the failure to detect an unexpected stimulus when attention is otherwise engaged. AB describes the inability to detect a second target that is presented within 180-500?ms of the first target. Previous research has suggested that similar cognitive processes underlie both IB and AB; however, they are distinct phenomena, and no evidence has directly linked the two. We tested the same group of observers on an IB task and an AB task. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that "non-noticers" who failed to detect an unexpected stimulus in the IB task also demonstrated a larger AB effect. This suggests that some observers may be more generally susceptible to failures of conscious visual awareness, regardless of specific context.     

The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired if it is presented less than about 500 ms after the first. Theoretical accounts of this second-target deficit, known as attentional blink (AB), have relied on some form of limited attentional resource that is allocated to the leading target at the expense of the trailing target. Three experiments in the present study reveal a failure of resource-limitation accounts to explain why the AB is absent when the targets consist of a stream of three items belonging to the same category (e.g., letters or digits). The AB is reinstated, however, if an item from a different category is inserted in the target string. This result, and all major results in the AB literature, is explained by the hypothesis that the AB arises from a temporary loss of control over the prevailing attentional set. This lapse in control renders the observer vulnerable to an exogenously-triggered switch in attentional set.     

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).     

Resting EEG in alpha and beta bands predicts individual differences in attentional blink magnitude

Accuracy for a second target (T2) is reduced when it is presented within 500 ms of a first target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) - an attentional blink (AB). There are reliable individual differences in the magnitude of the AB. Recent evidence has shown that the attentional approach that an individual typically adopts during a task or in anticipation of a task, as indicated by various measures, predicts individual differences in the AB deficit. It has yet to be observed whether indices of attentional approach when not engaged in a goal-directed task are also relevant to individual differences in the AB. The current studies investigated individual differences in the AB by examining their relationship with attention at rest using quantitative measures of EEG. Greater levels of alpha at rest were associated with larger AB magnitudes, where greater levels of beta at rest were associated with smaller AB magnitudes. Furthermore, individuals with more beta than alpha demonstrated a smaller AB effect than individuals with more alpha than beta. Our results suggest that greater attentional engagement at rest, when not engaged in a goal-directed task, is associated with smaller AB magnitudes.     

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.     

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.     

The absence of an auditory-visual attentional blink is not due to echoic memory

The second of two targets is often missed when presented shortly after the first target--a phenomenon referred to as the attentional blink (AB). Whereas the AB is a robust phenomenon within sensory modalities, the evidence for cross-modal ABs is rather mixed. Here, we test the possibility that the absence of an auditory-visual AB for visual letter recognition when streams of tones are used is due to the efficient use of echoic memory, allowing for the postponement of auditory processing. However, forcing participants to immediately process the auditory target, either by presenting interfering sounds during retrieval or by making the first target directly relevant for a speeded response to the second target, did not result in a return of a cross-modal AB. Thefindings argue against echoic memory as an explanation for efficient cross-modal processing. Instead, we hypothesized that a cross-modal AB may be observed when the different modalities use common representations, such as semantic representations. In support of this, a deficit for visual letter recognition returned when the auditory task required a distinction between spoken digits and letters.     

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.     

The attentional blink is not a unitary phenomenon

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired if it is presented less than about 500 ms after the first. Three models of this second-target deficit, known as attentional blink (AB), were compared:resource-depletion, bottleneck, and temporary loss of control (TLC). Five experiments, in which three sequential targets were inserted in a stream of distractors, showed that identification accuracy for the leading target depended on an attentional switch whose magnitude varied with distractor–target similarity. In contrast, accuracy for the trailing target depended on similarity between the target and the trailing mask. These results strongly suggest that the AB is not a unitary phenomenon. Resource-depletion was ruled out as a viable account. The effect of attentional switching was handled naturally by the TLC model, while bottleneck models offered the best account of the effect of backward masking.     

Masking T1 difficulty: processing time and the attenional blink

When observers are presented with 2 targets in rapid succession, identification of the 1st is highly accurate, whereas identification of the 2nd is impaired at brief intertarget intervals (i.e., 200-500 ms). This 2nd-target deficit is known as the attentional blink (AB). According to bottleneck models, the AB arises because attending to the 1st target delays allocation of attention to the 2nd target. Thus, these models predict that increasing 1st-target processing time will increase the magnitude of the AB. Previous tests of this prediction have yielded mixed results. The present work suggests that one factor contributing to this uncertainty is masking of the 1st target: When this mask is omitted, processing time and AB magnitude are reliably related. These findings clarify the role of 1st-target masking in the AB and support the validity of the bottleneck account.     

A crossmodal attentional blink between vision and touch

There is currently a great deal of interest regarding the possible existence of a crossmodal attentional blink (AB) between audition and vision. The majority of evidence now suggests that no such crossmodal deficit exists unless a task switch is introduced. We report two experiments designed to investigate the existence of a crossmodal AB between vision and touch. Two masked targets were presented successively at variable interstimulus intervals. Participants had to respond either to both targets (experimental condition) or to just the second target (control condition). In Experiment 1, the order of target modality was blocked, and an AB was demonstrated when visual targets preceded tactile targets, but not when tactile targets preceded visual targets. In Experiment 2, target modality was mixed randomly, and a significant crossmodal AB was demonstrated in both directions between vision and touch. The contrast between our visuotactile results and those of previous audiovisual studies is discussed, as are the implications for current theories of the AB.     

Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance

The ability to remain vigilant over long periods of time is critical for many everyday tasks, but controlled studies of visual sustained attention show that performance declines over time when observers are required to respond to rare stimulus events (targets) occurring in a sequence of standard stimulus events (nontargets). When target discrimination is perceptually difficult, this vigilance decrement manifests as a decline in perceptual sensitivity. We examined whether sudden-onset stimuli could act as exogenous attentional cues to improve sensitivity during a traditional sustained attention task. Sudden-onset cues presented immediately before each stimulus attenuated the sensitivity decrement, but only when stimulus timing (the interstimulus interval [ISI]) was constant. When stimulus timing was variable, exogenous cues increased overall sensitivity but did not prevent performance decline. Finally, independent of the effects of sudden onsets, a constant ISI improved vigilance performance. Our results demonstrate that exogenous attention enhances perceptual sensitivity during vigilance performance, but that this effect is dependent on observers’ being able to predict the timing of stimulus events. Such a result indicates a strong interaction between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance. We relate our findings to a resource model of vigilance, as well as to theories of endogenous and exogenous attention over short time periods.