Adults blink more deeply: a comparative study of the attentional blink across different age groups

The attentional blink (AB) is thought to help the visual system parse and categorize rapidly changing information by segmenting it into temporal chunks, and is elicited using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation. It is reflected in a decrease in accuracy at detecting the second of two targets presented within 200–500 ms of the first, and its development appears to be protracted on tasks that require set‐shifting. Here, younger (M = 8.5 years) and older (M = 12.8 years) children and adults (M = 19.13 years) completed a simple AB task with no set‐shift requirement in which participants detected two letters in a stream of numbers presented at a rate of 135 ms/item. In addition to assessing the developmental course of the AB on this simple task, we also assessed temporal order errors, or swaps. The AB and its associated characteristics are present in both groups but developmental differences were noted in the depth of the AB, and the presence or absence of lag‐1 sparing. These developmental changes were explained by changes in a single parameter, inhibition, using the eTST model, which suggests that the AB is an adaptive function of the visual system.     

On the role of intervening distractors in the attentional blink

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the decline in accurate report for a second target (T2) when presented within about 500 ms of a first target (T1) embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of distractors. It is debated whether the distractors presented shortly after T1 cause the AB directly, as is proposed by distractor-based models, or can modulate its amplitude only indirectly by increasing T1 difficulty, as is proposed by capacity-based models. To investigate this issue, an intervening distractor was presented at lag 1 (T1 + 1), at lag 2 (T1 + 2), or at neither of these two lags (no distractor). T2 was presented at either lag 3 or 9. An AB was observed even in the absence of intervening distractors, indicating that distractors are not necessary to produce an AB. Nonetheless, the T1 + 2 distractor did modulate the AB directly, without influencing T1 performance. Neither theory can fully account for the results but can do so given some modifications.     

Individual differences within and across attentional blink tasks revisited

When the second of two targets (T2) is presented in close temporal proximity (within 200–500 ms) to the first (T1), the accuracy for reporting T2 is reduced relative to when the targets are separated by longer durations; this effect is known as the attentional blink (AB). Two recent studies have shown that individual differences in the magnitudes of the AB are stable both within a single testing session and over time. While one study found a large positive correlation between AB magnitudes when there was an attentional-set/task switch between T1 and T2 and when there was not, the other study found no relationship between the switch and no-switch paradigms. The present study was conducted to clarify this discrepancy by examining the reliability of, and relationships among, individual differences in AB performance on five different versions of the standard dual-target RSVP paradigm, three of which involved an attentional-set/task switch between T1 and T2, and two of which did not. Participants completed all five paradigms, and then returned 7–10 days later to again complete the same paradigms. The performance on all five versions was reliable both within and across testing sessions, demonstrating again that individual differences in AB performance are stable over time. In addition, all five AB versions were significantly intercorrelated, although the strengths of the relationships differed depending on the extent to which the T1 and T2 attentional sets/tasks overlapped. These findings provide evidence that multiple distinct dual-target RSVP tasks do share underlying variability, providing support for the use of different versions of the paradigm in the literature.     

The influence of temporal selection on spatial selection and distractor interference: an attentional blink study.

Both spatial and temporal selection require focused attention. The authors examine how temporal attention affects spatial selection. In a dual-task rapid serial visual presentation paradigm, temporal selection of a target (T1) impairs processing of a second target (T2) that follows T1 within 500 ms. This process is the attentional blink (AB). To test the effects of withdrawing temporal attention, the authors measured concurrent distractor interference on T2 when the distractors were presented during and outside of the AB. Perceptual interference was manipulated by the similarity in color between T2 and concurrent distractors, and response interference was manipulated by the flanker congruency task. Results showed that perceptual interference was larger during the AB. Response interference also increased during the AB, but only when perceptual interference was high. The authors conclude that temporal selection and spatial selection rely on a common attentional process.     

注意捕获对注意瞬脱的消弱作用

本研究在经典的注意瞬脱研究范式中变化干扰刺激T2-1或目标刺激T2的颜色特征,探究由新异刺激特征引发的注意捕获对注意瞬脱的影响。结果发现,当改变T2-1或T2的颜色时,这些与任务无关的新异信息可以自下而上地引发注意捕获并减小注意瞬脱。注意瞬脱起因于有限注意资源的分配,资源的分配方式受注意捕获的自动调节。这为解决注意瞬脱到底是有限资源限制还是资源分配提供了新的实证和理论解释。     

The impact of emotional faces on younger and older adults’ attentional blink

ABSTRACT

The attentional blink (AB) is the impaired ability to detect a second target (T2) when it follows shortly after the first (T1) among distractors in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Given questions about the automaticity of age differences in emotion processing, the current study examined whether emotion cues differentially impact the AB elicited in older and younger adults. Twenty-two younger (18–22 years) and 22 older adult participants (62–78 years) reported on the emotional content of target face stimulus pairs embedded in a RSVP of scrambled-face distractor images. Target pairs included photo-realistic faces of angry, happy, and neutral expressions. The order of emotional and neutral stimuli as T1 or T2 and the degree of temporal separation within the RSVP systematically varied. Target detection accuracy was used to operationalise the AB. Although older adults displayed a larger AB than younger adults, no age differences emerged in the impact of emotion on the AB. Angry T1 faces increased the AB of both age groups. Neither emotional T2 attenuated the AB. Negative facial expressions held the attention of younger and older adults in a comparable manner, exacerbating the AB and supporting a negativity bias instead of a positivity effect in older adults.     

Upshifted decision criteria in attentional blink and repetition blindness

A large number of “unawareness” phenomena have been explained and quantified in terms of sensitivity (d′) fluctuations, with very few attempts at addressing an alternative putative cause, i.e., fluctuations of subjects’ response criteria (c). Response criteria fluctuations are particularly likely under dual-task paradigms with unbalanced sensitivities (Gorea & Sagi, 2000) such as those used in evidencing attentional blink (AB) and repetition blindness (RB) phenomena. The present study inquires into whether AB and RB are indeed prone to a deviant decisional behaviour. AB and RB were studied with a yes/no task allowing the assessment of d′ and c for the detection (presence/absence) of a target letter T2 as a function of its temporal lag relative to the presentation of another (AB) or of the same (RB) letter, T1 (Experiment 1). A significant criterion increase was observed in both cases. Additional experiments demonstrate that this criterion effect is typical of these dual-task AB and RB paradigms as it is not observed in a standard contrast detection task with mixed contrasts (Experiment 2), in a “control” AB design stripped off its first task T1 (Experiment 3), or in a metacontrast experiment (Experiment 4). We propose that the observed criterion shifts are the consequence of the inherent dual-task AB and RB designs (where observers have to judge two events of unequal saliencies) and that they entail an enhancement of the AB and RB effects as long as these effects are assessed via subjective (yes/no or matching) procedures.     

Attentional requirements is visual detection and identification: evidence from the attentional blink

Perception of the 2nd of 2 targets (T1 and T2) is impaired if the lag between them is short (0-500 ms). The authors used this attentional blink (AB) to index attentional requirements in detection and identification tasks, with or without backward masking of T2, in 2 stimulus domains (line orientation, coherent motion). With masking, the AB occurred because T2 was masked during the attentional dwell time created by T1 processing (Experiments 1, 2, and 3). Without masking, an AB occurred only in identification because during the attentional dwell time, T2 decayed to a level that could support simple detection but not complex identification. However, an AB occurred also in detection if T2 was sufficiently degraded (Experiment 4). The authors drew 2 major conclusions: (a) Attention is required in both identification and detection, and (b) 2 factors contribute to the AB, masking of T2 while attention is focused on T1 and decay of the T2 trace while unattended.     

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.     

Neither backward masking of T2 nor task switching is necessary for the attentional blink

Identification of the second of two targets (T1, T2, inserted in a stream of distractors) is impaired when presented within 500 ms after the first (attentional blink, AB). Barring a T1-T2 task-switch, it is thought that T2 must be backward-masked to obtain an AB (Giesbrecht &; Di Lollo, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1454-1466, 1998). We tested the hypothesis that Giesbrecht &; Di Lollo's findings were vitiated by ceiling constraints arising from either response scale (experiment 1) or data limitations (experiment 2). In experiment 1, digit-distractors were replaced with pseudoletters to increase task difficulty, bringing performance below ceiling. An AB occurred without backward masking of T2. In experiment 2, a ceiling-free procedure estimated the number of noise dots needed for 80% T2 identification. An AB was revealed: fewer noise dots were required during the AB period than outside it. Both outcomes confirm that an AB can be obtained without either masking of T2 or task switching.     

The attentional blink with targets in different spatial locations

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

注意瞬脱范式中的知觉负载对情绪面孔加工的影响

情绪性刺激的加工是否受注意影响目前尚存争论。基于许多操纵空间注意焦点的研究未能在注意资源的分配上进行精确的调节, 本实验将时间维度的注意瞬脱范式与负载理论相结合, 通过调节注意瞬脱中T1刺激物知觉负载水平的高低(箭头朝向相同与否), 观察被试在四种时间延迟条件下(延迟2, 延迟3, 延迟5, 延迟8)T2目标侦测任务恐惧和中性面孔的反应正确率, 从而对情绪性刺激的加工特征进行研究。实验发现：对恐惧面孔侦测的正确率在高知觉负载条件下显著降低, 而中性面孔则不受知觉负载水平影响, 并且这种高知觉负载对恐惧面孔加工的抑制作用仅发生在注意瞬脱中的短延迟条件下。说明在知觉加工资源和注意调节作用同时受限的情况下恐惧面孔的优势加工受到限制, 提示情绪性刺激的加工与中性刺激相比消耗的加工资源较少, 并依赖于注意的调控。     

The effect of observer's set on the processing of temporally distributed items1,2

Abstract: Perception of the second of two rapidly presented targets is impaired when the temporal lag between them is short (attentional blink, AB). Previous studies showed two types of AB functions. One is that the performance for the second target has been found to be most impaired at the shortest lag (Lag 1), that is, when the second target appeared directly after the ?rst target. The other is that the performance was not impaired at Lag 1 (Lag 1 sparing). The present study examined whether the task set of observers determines the occurrence of Lag 1 sparing. The experiment revealed that Lag 1 sparing occurred only when the observers were informed of the relationships of target locations. The present results extend the explanation of Lag 1 sparing by attentional gating ( Visser, Zuvic, Bischof, & Di Lollo, 1999 b) and suggest that this gating system is not stimulus‐driven but subject to goal‐directed control.     

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.     

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 electrophysiological responses to performance feedback predict AB magnitude

The attentional blink (AB) is observed when report accuracy for a second target (T2) is reduced if T2 is presented within approximately 500 ms of a first target (T1), but accuracy is relatively unimpaired at longer T1–T2 separations. The AB is thought to represent a transient cost of attending to a target, and reliable individual differences have been observed in its magnitude. Some models of the AB have suggested that cognitive control contributes to production of the AB, such that greater cognitive control is associated with larger AB magnitudes. Performance-monitoring functions are thought to modulate the strength of cognitive control, and those functions are indexed by event-related potentials in response to both endogenous and exogenous performance evaluation. Here we examined whether individual differences in the amplitudes to internal and external response feedback predict individual AB magnitudes. We found that electrophysiological responses to externally provided performance feedback, measured in two different tasks, did predict individual differences in AB magnitude, such that greater feedback-related N2 amplitudes were associated with larger AB magnitudes, regardless of the valence of the feedback.     

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.