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).     

The roles of location specificity and masking mechanisms in the attentional blink

In a series of four experiments using rapid serial visual presentations of two target letters embedded in numeral distractors, with different numbers of display positions and with or without masking, we show that (1) the nonmonotonic, U-shaped attentional blink (AB) function, which occurs when all items are presented at the same display location, is eliminated in favor of a monotonic function when targets and distractors are presented randomly dispersed over four or nine adjacent positions; (2) the AB monotonicity is maintained with the spatially distributed presentation even when backward masks are used in all possible stimulus positions and when the location of the next item in sequence is predictable; and (3) the If-shaped AB is not due to position-specific forward or backward masking effects occurring at early levels of visual processing. We tentatively conclude that the U-shaped AB is primarily a function of the interruption of late visual processing produced when the item following the first target occurs at the same location. In order for the AB to severely disrupt performance, the item following the first target must be presented at the same location as the target so that it can serve both as a distractor and as a mask interrupting or interfering with subsequent visual processing.     

The roles of location specificity and masking mechanisms in the attentional blink.

In a series of four experiments using rapid serial visual presentations of two target letters embedded in numeral distractors, with different numbers of display positions and with or without masking, we show that (1) the nonmonotonic, U-shaped attentional blink (AB) function, which occurs when all items are presented at the same display location, is eliminated in favor of a monotonic function when targets and distractors are presented randomly dispersed over four or nine adjacent positions; (2) the AB monotonicity is maintained with the spatially distributed presentation even when backward masks are used in all possible stimulus positions and when the location of the next item in sequence is predictable; and (3) the U-shaped AB is not due to position-specific forward or backward masking effects occurring at early levels of visual processing. We tentatively conclude that the U-shaped AB is primarily a function of the interruption of late visual processing produced when the item following the first target occurs at the same location. In order for the AB to severely disrupt performance, the item following the first target must be presented at the same location as the target so that it can serve both as a distractor and as a mask interrupting of interfering with subsequent visual processing.     

Spatial cuing does not affect the magnitude of the attentional blink

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired when the second target is presented less than about 500 msec after the first. Nieuwenstein, Chun, van der Lubbe, and Hooge (2005, Experiment 4) reported that the magnitude of this attentional blink (AB) is reduced when the location of the second target is precued. Here we show how that finding resulted from an artifact brought about by a ceiling imposed by data limitation. Instead of using an accuracy measure, the present work used a dynamic threshold-tracking procedure that was not constrained by a performance ceiling. The results show that, when the ceiling is removed, spatial cuing does not affect and is not affected by the AB. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that cue localization and target identification may take place along separate (dorsal and ventral) visual pathways.     

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.     

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.     

Sources of interference in the attentional blink: target-distractor similarity revisited

Observers monitored streams of words or letters (10 items/sec) for one or two targets. An attentional blink (AB) effect was observed in which identification of the first target temporarily impaired identification of the second target. Target identification was impaired when the distractors were composed of either letters or false-font characters (cf. Maki, Couture, Frigen, & Lien, 1997). An asymmetrical AB effect was observed with letters and mathematical symbols; the AB effect was largest for symbol targets and letter distractors. The characters used in these experiments were rated on their meaningfulness, familiarity, and other stimulus properties. The rating data showed that pixel density best accounted for the asymmetrical target-distractor similarity effects. Modulation of the AB effect by target-distractor similarity appears to result partly from low-level masking. But masking effects may be reduced by attentional capture by target features.     

New objects,not new features,trigger the attentional blink

When two different targets must be selected from a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of images, perception of the second target will be markedly reduced if it is presented within about a half second of the first. Known as the attentional blink (AB), this effect reflects temporal limitations in attentional processes enabling awareness of image representations. I tested whether these limitations occur at an object or feature level of processing by presenting (in RSVP) multiple images of the same (old) object depicted in different orientations. Targets were defined by new features added either to this or to a new object. When the first target feature appeared on the old object, no AB effects were found even when the second target was a new object. When a new object carried the first target feature, an AB effect was found even when the second target feature appeared on the same "new" object. The AB appears to reflect limitations in the creation of new object representations, rather than temporal limitations of awareness per se.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Objects and events in the attentional blink

When two visual targets, T1 and T2, are presented in rapid succession, detection or identification of T2 is almost universally degraded by the requirement to attend to T1 (the attentional blink, or AB). One interesting exception occurs when T1 is a brief gap in a continuous letter stream and the task is to discriminate its duration. One hypothesized explanation for this exception is that an AB is triggered only by attention to a patterned object. The results reported here eliminate this hypothesis. Duration judgments produced no AB whether the judged duration concerned a short gap in the letter stream (Experiment 1) or a letter presented for slightly longer than others (Experiment 2). When identification of an identical longer letter T1 was required (Experiment 3), rather than a duration judgment, the AB was reestablished. Direct perceptual judgments of letter streams with gaps embedded showed that whereas brief gaps result in the percept of a single, briefly hesitating stream, longer gaps result in the percept of two separate streams with a separating pause. Correspondingly, an AB was produced in Experiment 4, when participants were required to judge the duration of longer T1 gaps. We propose that, like spatially separated objects, temporal events are parsed into discrete, hierarchically organized events. An AB is triggered only when a new attended event is defined, either when a long pause creates a new perceived stream (Experiment 4) or when attention shifts from the stream to the letter level (Experiment 3).     

The role of the magnocellular visual pathway in the attentional blink

Visual attention has temporal limitations. In the attentional blink (AB) a stream of stimuli such as letters or digits are presented to a participant on a computer monitor at a rapid rate. Embedded in the stream are two targets that the participant must try to identify. Identification of the second target is severely impaired if it is presented within approximately 500ms of the first target. This is the 'blink' in visual attention. In this study we examined the role of the magnocellular visual pathway in the AB. This fast conducting pathway has high temporal resolution and contrast sensitivity. It is also insensitive to the direction of chromatic contrast, and this attribute was exploited in order to isolate its contributions to temporal attention. Colour defined, luminance noise masked AB streams were compared to AB streams of varying achromatic contrast. The four observers, (2F and 2M) aged between 21 and 35years, had normal visual acuity and colour vision. The colour stimuli produced a similar blink to the moderate contrast achromatic stimuli. This indicates that the magnocellular pathway does not have a privileged role in the attentional blink. We provide an explanation of previous apparently contradictory findings in terms of the role of different types of visual masking in the attentional blink.     

The benefit of attention is not diminished when distributed over two simultaneous cues

Recent findings have suggested that transient attention can be triggered at two locations simultaneously. However, it is unclear whether doing so reduces the effect of attention at each attended location. In two experiments, we explored the consequences of dividing attention. In the first experiment, we compared the effects of one or two cues against an uncued baseline to determine the consequences of dividing attention in a paradigm with four rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams. The results indicated that two simultaneous cues increase the accuracy of reporting two targets by almost the same amount as a single cue increases the report of a single target. These results suggest that when attention is divided between multiple locations, the attentional benefit at each location is not reduced in proportion to the total number of cues. A consequent prediction of this finding is that the identification of two RSVP targets should be better when they are presented simultaneously rather than sequentially. In a second experiment, we verified this prediction by finding evidence of lag-0 sparing: Two targets presented simultaneously in different locations were reported more easily than two targets separated by 100 ms. These findings argue against a biased-competition theory of attention. We suggest that visual attention, as triggered by a cue or target, is better described by a convergent gradient-field attention model.     

Right hemisphere involvement in the attentional blink: evidence from a split-brain patient

When two masked targets are presented in a rapid sequence, correct identification of the first hinders identification of the second. This attentional blink (AB) is thought to be the result of capacity limitations in visual information processing. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence implicated the right hemisphere as the source of this processing limitation. We investigated this idea by testing a split-brain patient (JW) in a modified AB task. The targets were presented in the same visual field (VF), and thereby to the same hemisphere, or in different VFs. We observed evidence of an AB both when the targets were presented to the same hemisphere and when the targets were presented to different hemispheres. However, the AB was more severe when the second target was presented to the RH. Our results are consistent with the notion that the right hemisphere plays a critical, but not unique, role in limited-capacity visual processing.     

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.     

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.     

Two noncontiguous locations can be attended concurrently: Evidence from the attentional blink

When two targets (T1 and T2) are inserted in a rapid stream of visual distractors (RSVP), detection/ identification accuracy of T2 is impaired at intertarget lags shorter than about 500 msec. This phenomenon, the attentional blink (AB), has been regarded as a hallmark of the inability of the visual system to process multiple items. Yet, paradoxically, the AB is much reduced when T2 is presented directly after T1 (known aslag-1 sparing). Because lag-1 sparing is said to depend on observers’ spatial attention being set to process the first target, we predicted that if observers are set to monitor two RSVP streams, they could process more than two items; that is, two instances of lag-1 sparing would be obtained concurrently. The results of three experiments indicated that this was the case. When observers searched for two targets in each of two synchronized RSVP streams, lag-1 sparing occurred concurrently in both streams. These results suggest that the visual system can handle up to four items at one moment under RSVP circumstances.     

Switching between goals mediates the attentional blink effect

Humans are fundamentally limited in processing information from the outside world. This is particularly evident in the attentional blink (AB), the impaired ability to identify the second of two targets presented in close succession. We report findings from three experiments showing that the AB is significantly reduced when observers are set to achieve one single goal (reporting combinations of the two targets) instead of separate goals (reporting the two targets). This finding raises questions about the nature of AB, and suggests that processes involved in goal-switching must be taken into account by theories of the AB phenomenon.     

The influence of synchronous audiovisual distractors on audiovisual temporal order judgments

Participants made unspeeded temporal order judgments (TOJs) regarding which occurred first, anauditory or a visual target stimulus, when they were presented at a variety of different stimulus onset asynchronies. The target stimuli were presented either in isolation or positioned randomly among a stream of three synchronous audiovisual distractors. The largest just noticeable differences were reported when the targets were presented in the middle of the distractor stream. When the targets were presented at the beginning of the stream, performance was no worse than when the audiovisual targets were presented in isolation. Subsequent experiments revealed that performance improved somewhat when the position of the target was fixed or when the target was made physically distinctive from the distractors. These results show that audiovisual TOJs are impaired by the presence of audiovisual distractors and that this cost can be ameliorated by directing attention to the appropriate temporal position within the stimulus stream.