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.     

Questioning the goal-switching account of the AB: comment on Ferlazzo et al. (2007)

Identification of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented less than about 500?ms after the first (T1; Attentional Blink: AB). Although the AB is known to be remarkably robust across many manipulations, [Ferlazzo, F., Lucido, S., Di Nocera, F., Fagioli, S., &; Sdoia, S. (2007). Switching between goals mediates the attentional blink effect. Experimental Psychology, 54, 89–98; Ferlazzo, F., Faglioli, S., Sdoia, S., &; Di Nocera, F. (2008). Goal-completion processes affect the attentional blink. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 697–710] found it to be substantially attenuated when the observers were set to accomplish a single goal (e.g. reporting the sum of the T1 and T2 digits) instead of a dual goal (reporting T1 and T2 separately). The larger AB obtained with the dual-goal set was ascribed to the attentional switch necessitated by the goal-switch between T1 and T2. This conclusion is questionable on three grounds: non-equivalent scoring procedures across conditions, range of inter-target lags, and unreliability of the baseline level. These issues were addressed in the present study. Contrary to Ferlazzo et al.’s conclusions, we found no AB attenuation in the single-goal, relative to the dual-goal condition.     

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.     

Memory search for the first target modulates the magnitude of the attentional blink

The resolution of temporal attention is limited in a manner that makes it difficult to identify two targets in short succession. This limitation produces the phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB), in which processing of a first target (T1) impairs identification of a second target (T2). In the AB literature, there is broad agreement that increasing the time it takes to process T1 leads to a larger AB. One might, therefore, predict that increasing the number of possible T1 identities, or target set, from 1 to 16 would lead to a larger AB. We were surprised to find that this manipulation of T1 difficulty had no influence on AB magnitude. In subsequent experiments, we found that AB magnitude interacts with T1 processing time only under certain circumstances. Specifically, when the T1 task was either well masked or had to be completed online, we found a reliable interaction between AB magnitude and the target set size. When neither of these conditions was fulfilled, there was no interaction between target set size and the AB. Previous research found that when the target set changes from trial to trial, trials with more possible targets elicited a larger AB. In the present study, the target set is held constant, reducing the demands on working memory. Nevertheless, AB magnitude still interacts with target set size, as long as the T1 task cannot be processed offline. Thus, the act of searching memory delays subsequent processing, even when the role of working memory has been minimized.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

A re-examination of the impact of object processing on shifts of spatial attention

When two targets are presented in rapid succession at the same spatial location, processing of the first is highly efficient, while processing of the second is often profoundly impaired at brief inter-target intervals (attentional blink; AB). While the AB has been shown to impact many processes, it is still unclear whether this includes the ability to shift spatial attention. The present study examined this question using a more sensitive dependent measure than past studies; namely, response times. It also evaluated whether masking of the cue stimulus modulated the effect of the AB on spatial shifts. The results showed significant cueing effects on T2 response times that were strongly modulated by the AB. This supports suggested links between mechanisms underlying object processing and spatial shifts of attention.     

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.     

情绪性注意瞬脱的认知机制:来自行为与ERP的证据

从过度投入理论与激活反弹理论对瓶颈理论的质疑出发,采用ERP技术检验了情绪性注意瞬脱的加工过程及其神经机制。行为结果显示,以恐惧面孔为T1,中性场景图片为T2,则恐惧面孔T1相对中性面孔T1显著降低了中性T2的识别正确率,进而诱发了情绪性注意瞬脱。ERP结果进一步显示,相较于中性面孔T1,恐惧面孔T1诱发的情绪加工影响了代表中枢加工资源的两阶段P3波幅,使得其始终高于代表标准注意瞬脱的中性面孔T1条件和代表非注意瞬脱的单任务基线条件。以上结果证明,情绪性注意瞬脱形成自情绪性T1加工所诱发的中枢资源过度投入,而非源自中枢资源瓶颈。     

How the brain blinks: towards a neurocognitive model of the attentional blink

When people monitor a visual stream of rapidly presented 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-the attentional blink (AB). We provide an overview of recent neuroscientific studies devoted to analyze the neural processes underlying the AB and their temporal dynamics. The available evidence points to an attentional network involving temporal, right-parietal and frontal cortex, and suggests that the components of this neural network interact by means of synchronization and stimulus-induced desynchronization in the beta frequency range. We set up a neurocognitive scenario describing how the AB might emerge and why it depends on the presence of masks and the other event(s) the targets are embedded in. The scenario supports the idea that the AB arises from "biased competition", with the top-down bias being generated by parietal-frontal interactions and the competition taking place between stimulus codes in temporal cortex.     

The attentional blink is not affected by backward masking of T2, T2-mask SOA, or level of T2 impoverishment

Identification of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). This attentional blink (AB) is thought to arise from a delay in T2 processing during which T2 is vulnerable to masking. Conventional studies have measured T2 accuracy which is constrained by the 100% ceiling. We avoided this problem by using a dynamic threshold-tracking procedure that is inherently free from ceiling constraints. In two experiments we examined how AB magnitude is affected by three masking-related factors: (a) presence/absence of T2 mask, (b) T2-mask stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and (c) level of T2 impoverishment (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]). In Experiment 1, overall accuracy decreased with T2-mask SOA. The magnitude of the AB, however, was invariant with SOA and with mask presence/absence. Experiment 2 further showed that the AB was invariant with T2 SNR. The relationship among mask presence/absence, SOA, and T2 SNR and the AB is encompassed in a qualitative model.     

Modality-specific and amodal sources of interference in the attentional blink

When two masked targets (T1 and T2) are visually or auditorily presented in rapid succession, processing of T1 produces an attentional blink (AB)--that is, a transient impairment of T2 identification. The present study was conducted to compare the relative impact of masking T1 and T2 between vision and audition. Within a rapidly presented sequence, each of the two verbal targets, discriminated by their offset (Experiment 1) or their onset (Experiment 2), could be followed by either a single item, acting as a mask, or a blank gap. Masking of T2 appeared to be necessary for the occurrence of the AB for both the visual and the auditory modality. However, whereas masking of T1 affected the expression of the visual AB in both experiments, the same effect was observed in the auditory modality only when the targets varied at the onset. These results provide further evidence that processing auditory and visual information is restricted by similar attentional limitations but also suggest that these limits are constrained by properties specific to each sensory system.     

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.     

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

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

The effect of fearful faces on the attentional blink is task dependent

In a set of three rapid serial visual presentation experiments, we investigated the effect of fearful and neutral face stimuli on the report of trailing scene targets. When the emotional expression of the face stimuli had to be indicated, fearful faces induced a stronger attentional blink (AB) than did neutral faces. However, with identical physical stimulation, the enhancement of the AB by fearful faces disappeared when participants had to judge the faces’ gender. If faces did not have to be reported, no AB was observed. Thus, fearful faces exhibited an effect on the AB that crucially depended on the observer’s attentional set. Hence, the AB can be influenced by an emotional T1 when T1 has to be reported, but this influence is modulated by task context. This result indicates a close connection between temporal attention and emotional processing that is modulated by task context.     

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

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

The attentional blink: A review of data and theory

Under conditions of rapid serial visual presentation, subjects display a reduced ability to report the second of two targets(Target2; T2) in a stream of distractors if it appearswithin200-500 msec of Target 1 (Tl). This effect. known as the attentional blink(AB),has been central in characterizing the limits of humans’ ability to consciously perceive stimuli distributed across time. Here, we review theoretical accounts of the AB and examine how they explain key findings in the literature. We conclude that the AB arises from attentional demands of Tl for selection, working memory encoding, episodic registration,and response selection, which prevents this high-level central resource from being applied to T2 at shortT1-T2 lags. Tl processing also transiently impairs the redeployment of these attentional resources to subsequent targets and the inhibition of distractors that appear in close temporal proximity to T2. Although these findings are consistent with a multifactorial account of the AB,they can also be largely explained by assuming that the activation of these multiple processes depends on a common capacity-limited attentional process for selecting behaviorally relevant events presented among temporally distributed distractors. Thus, at its core, the attentional blink may ultimately reveal the temporal limits of the deployment of selective attention.     

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.     

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.