Perceptual load modulates the processing of distractors presented at task-irrelevant locations during the attentional blink

The distribution of attention in both space and time is critical for processing our dynamic environment. Studies of spatial attention suggest that the distribution of attention is decreased when the perceptual load of a task increases, resulting in decreased processing of task-irrelevant distractors. Studies of the attentional blink (AB) suggest that the temporal distribution of attention also influences distractor processing, such that distractor processing increases during the AB relative to outside the AB (Jiang & Chun, 2001). Two experiments are reported in which the extent to which the difficulty of the first target task (T1) modulates the processing of task-irrelevant distractors during the AB was tested. To investigate this issue, both the first and second target tasks (T1 and T2) required identifying a central stimulus that was flanked by low-load or high-load distractors. Consistent with previous studies of the AB, there was evidence of more distractor processing during the AB than outside the AB. Critically, however, the interference caused by distractors presented simultaneously with T2 during the AB was reduced when T1 perceptual load was high relative to when it was low. These results suggest that increasing T1 perceptual load decreases distractor processing during the AB and that perceptual processes influence both the temporal and spatial distribution of attention.     

Attentional capture by emotional stimuli is modulated by semantic processing

The attentional blink paradigm was used to examine whether emotional stimuli always capture attention. The processing requirement for emotional stimuli in a rapid sequential visual presentation stream was manipulated to investigate the circumstances under which emotional distractors capture attention, as reflected in an enhanced attentional blink effect. Emotional distractors did not cause more interference than neutral distractors on target identification when perceptual or phonological processing of stimuli was required, showing that emotional processing is not as automatic as previously hypothesized. Only when semantic processing of stimuli was required did emotional distractors capture more attention than neutral distractors and increase attentional blink magnitude. Combining the results from 5 experiments, the authors conclude that semantic processing can modulate the attentional capture effect of emotional stimuli.     

Modality-specific auditory and visual temporal processing deficits

We studied the attentional blink (AB) and the repetition blindness (RB) effects using an audio-visual presentation procedure designed to overcome several potential methodological confounds in previous cross-modal research. In Experiment 1, two target digits were embedded amongst letter distractors in two concurrent streams (one visual and the other auditory) presented from the same spatial location. Targets appeared in either modality unpredictably at different temporal lags, and the participants' task was to recall the digits at the end of the trial. We evaluated both AB and RB for pairs of targets presented in either the same or different modalities. Under these conditions both AB and RB were observed in vision, AB but not RB was observed in audition, and there was no evidence of AB or RB cross-modally from audition to vision or vice versa. In Experiment 2, we further investigated the AB by including Lag 1 items and observed Lag 1 sparing, thus ruling out the possibility that the observed effects were due to perceptual and/or conceptual masking. Our results support a distinction between a modality-specific interference at the attentional selection stage and a modality-independent interference at later processing stages. They also provide a new dissociation between the AB and RB.     

Manipulations of distractor frequency do not mitigate emotion-induced blindness

Emotional distractors can impair perception of subsequently presented targets, a phenomenon called emotion-induced blindness. Do emotional distractors lose their power to disrupt perception when appearing with increased frequency, perhaps due to desensitisation or enhanced recruitment of proactive control? Non-emotional tasks, such as the Stroop, have revealed that high frequency distractors or conflict lead to reduced interference, and distractor frequency appears to modulate attentional capture by emotional distractors in spatial attention tasks. But emotion-induced blindness is thought to reflect perceptual competition between targets and emotional distractors, and it is unclear whether high frequency emotional stimuli cause less disruption at this relatively early stage of processing. In four experiments, participants searched streams of images for a rotated target image. A negative or neutral distractor appeared before the target, and their relative frequency was manipulated. Across all experiments, the frequency of emotional distractors did not modulate emotion-induced blindness even when participants were explicitly informed that they would appear often or seldom. Thus, increased distractor frequency does not appear to mitigate the priority allotted to emotional distractors during perceptual competition.     

Age-Related Changes in Temporal Allocation of Visual Attention: Evidence From the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) Paradigm

The present study explored the temporal allocation of attention in groups of 8-year-old children, 10-year-old children, and adults performing a rapid serial visual presentation task. In a dual-condition task, participants had to detect a briefly presented target (T2) after identifying an initial target (T1) embedded in a random series of distractors. A single-condition control task required participants to detect T2 without first identifying T1. The attentional blink (AB) reflects impairments in T2 detection due to the previous identification of T1. Although the amplitude of the AB (difference in T2 detection performance between the single task and the dual task) was found to be similar across age groups, its temporal expression (as a function of the T1–T2 lag) differed across age groups. Our results revealed age-related changes a) in the duration of the first lag(s) sparing effect (longer in the younger age groups), b) in the peak position of the AB (temporal displacement toward later lags in the younger age groups), and c) in the width of the AB (T2 impairments occurring for T1–T2 intervals of 400 ms and 500 ms in 8-year-old children, 300 ms in 10-year-old children, and 200 ms and 300 ms in adults). We discuss these differences in terms of changes in the efficiency of perceptual selection and inhibitory processes (attentional gating mechanisms) during development.     

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.     

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.     

Processing overlap-dependent distractor dilution rather than perceptual target load determines attentional selectivity

The perceptual load theory of attentional selection argues that the degree to which distractors interfere with target processing is determined by the “perceptual load” (or discrimination difficulty) of target processing: when perceptual load is low, distractors interfere to a greater extent than when it is high. A well-known exception is load-independent interference effects from face distractors during processing of name targets. This finding was reconciled with load theory by proposing distinct processing resources for faces versus names. In the present study, we revisit this effect to test (a) whether increasing the processing overlap (perceptual, lexical, conceptual) between potential targets and distractors would reinstate the classic load effect, and (b) whether this data pattern could be better explained by load theory or by a rival account that argues that distractor dilution rather than target load determines the degree of distractor interference. Over four experiments, we first replicate the original finding and then show that load effects grow with increasing processing overlap between potential targets and distractors. However, by adding dilution conditions, we also show that these processing overlap dependent modulations of distractor interference can be explained by the distractor dilution perspective but not by perceptual load theory. Thus, our findings support a processing overlap dilution account of attentional selection.     

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 selection: A salience-based competition for representation

The role of salience in localized attentional interference (LAI) was examined. In two experiments, target discrimination performance was measured as a function of the spatial separation between the target and a salient distractor item. In Experiment 1, both the salience of the distractor and that of a target were manipulated. Distractor salience was manipulated via size changes to the distractor, and target salience was manipulated by using unmasked or onset targets. When the target was of low salience, the magnitude of interference from the distractor increased with distractor salience. However, when the target had an abrupt onset, the distractor had no impact on target performance. In Experiment 2, the attentional salience of the distractor was manipulated using a probability manipulation. Displays contained both a target and a color singleton distractor. The color singleton produced LAI when it was predictive of the target location but not when it was unpredictive of the target location. The results of both experiments are consistent with models of competition-based attentional selection.     

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.     

从知觉负载理论来理解选择性注意

知觉负载理论被认为解决了选择性注意研究的早选择和晚选择观点之争。当前任务对注意资源的耗用程度决定了与任务无关的干扰刺激得到多少加工,从而导致在低知觉负载下,注意资源自动溢出去加工干扰刺激（晚选择）,而在高知觉负载下,注意资源被当前任务耗尽而无法加工干扰刺激（早选择）。知觉负载理论提出后,研究者进行了一系列研究。一部分工作专注于知觉负载对选择性注意的调节作用;另外一些工作则关注其他认知过程如何影响注意资源的分配,其中知觉负载与工作记忆负载的关系是当前关注重点。     

Input control processes in rapid serial visual presentations: target selection and distractor inhibition

The attentional blink refers to the finding that the 2nd of 2 targets embedded in a stream of rapidly presented distractors is often missed. Whereas most theories of the attentional blink focus on limited-capacity processes that occur after target selection, the present work investigates the selection process itself. Identifying a target letter caused an attentional blink for the enumeration of subsequent dot patterns, but this blink was reduced when the dots shared their color with the target letter. In contrast, performance worsened when the color of the dots matched that of the remaining distractors in the stream. Similarity between the targets also affected competition between different sets of dots presented simultaneously within a single display. The authors conclude that the selection of targets from a rapid serial visual presentation stream is mediated by both excitatory and inhibitory attentional control mechanisms.     

知觉负载、注意定势与选择性注意

本研究采用Eriksen Flanker（侧抑制）范式,将当前任务区分为高、低知觉负载两种条件．并系统操纵边缘视野干扰项与中央靶子的不同加工层次关系,从而考察注意选择的知觉负载理论。实验一发现,高知觉负载情况下没有任何flanker冲突效应,而低知觉负载情况下既有知觉层次和反应层次的冲突效应,也有一致条件下的促进效应。实验二增加了一致条件试次的比例,从而操纵自上而下的注意定势,发现高、低知觉负载情况下都存在知觉冲突效应和一致条件下的促进效应。这些发现表明,对任务无关信息的加工既受到任务相关信息的知觉负载和剩余加工资源的分配的影响,也受到自上而下注意定势的影响;自下而上和自上而下过程相互作用,共同决定加工资源的分配和注意选择的认知阶段。     

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.     

Load theory of selective attention and the role of perceptual load: Is it time for revision?

Perceptual load hypothesis is proposed as a compromise between early and late theory of selective attention which states that the selection will operate early when the load on perception is high and it will operate late when the load on perception is low. Experimental findings have shown that the perceptual load hypothesis is too simplistic in nature as perceptual load is not the only determinant of selection processes. It is difficult to apply the load hypothesis to explain the occurrence of early selection in low load displays as well as the selection processes that operate on distractor and target stimuli that are a part of the same object. Factors like spatial proximity, cues that manipulate the spatial extent of attentional focus, salience of targets as well as the distractors, and perceptual grouping between the target and the distractors should be taken into account while explaining the selective control of attention. Thus, the perceptual load of the display is one such factor that affects selective attention and goal-directed behaviour, but it is not the only factor to affect the selective control of attention.     

Selective target processing: perceptual load or distractor salience?

Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995) states that participants cannot engage in focused attention when shown displays containing a low perceptual load, because attentional resources are not exhausted, whereas in high-load displays attention is always focused, because attentional resources are exhausted. An alternative "salience" hypothesis holds that the salience of distractors and not perceptual load per se determines selective attention. Three experiments were conducted to investigate the influence that target and distractor onsets and offsets have on selective processing in a standard interference task. Perceptual load theory predicts that, regardless of target or distractor presentation (onset or offset), interference from ignored distractors should occur in low-load displays only. In contrast, the salience hypothesis predicts that interference should occur when the distractor appears as an onset and would occur for distractor offsets only when the target was also an offset. Interference may even occur in highload displays if the distractor is more salient. The results supported the salience hypothesis.     

Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action

In a series of three experiments requiring selection of real objects for action, we investigated whether characteristics of the planned action and/or the “affordances” of target and distractor objects affected interference caused by distractors. In all ofthe experiments, the target object was selectedon the basis of colour and was presented alone or with a distractor object. We examined the effect of type of response (button press, grasping, or pointing), object affordances (compatibility with the acting hand, affordances for grasping or pointing), and target/distractor positions (left or right) on distractor interference (reaction time differences between trials with and without distractors). Different patterns of distractor interference were associated with different motor responses. In the button-press conditions of each experiment, distractor interference was largely determined by perceptual salience (e.g., proximity to initial visual fixation). In contrast, in tasks requiring action upon the objects in the array, distractors with handles caused greater interference than those without handles, irrespective of whether the intended action was pointing or grasping. Additionally, handled distractors were relatively more salient when their affordances for grasping were strong (handle direction compatible with the acting hand) than when affordances were weak. These data suggest that attentional highlighting of specific target and distractor features is a function of intended actions.     

Trait anxiety and perceptual load as determinants of emotion processing in a fear conditioning paradigm

The impact of trait anxiety and perceptual load on selective attention was examined in a fear conditioning paradigm. A fear-conditioned angry face (CS+), an unconditioned angry face (CS-), or an unconditioned face with a neutral or happy expression were used in distractor interference and attentional probe tasks. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants classified centrally presented letters under two conditions of perceptual load. When perceptual load was high, distractors had no effect on selective attention, even with aversive conditioning. However, when perceptual load was low, strong response interference effects for CS+ face distractors were found for low trait-anxious participants. Across both experiments, this enhanced distractor interference reversed to strong facilitation effects for those reporting high trait anxiety. Thus, high trait-anxious participants were faster, rather than slower, when ignoring CS+ distractors. Using an attentional probe task in Experiment 3, it was found that fear conditioning resulted in strong attentional avoidance in a high trait-anxious group, which contrasted with enhanced vigilance in a low trait-anxious group. These results demonstrate that the impact of fear conditioning on attention is modulated by individual variation in trait anxiety when perceptual load is low. Fear conditioning elicits an avoidance of threat-relevant stimuli in high trait-anxious participants.     

Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference

Although the effects of attentional focus and perceptual load on selective attention when targets and distractors are distinct objects that occupy separate locations are well known, there has been little examination of their role when both relevant and irrelevant information pertains to the same object. In four experiments, participants were shown Stroop color words or strings of letters in a task of speeded color identification. When the participants' attentional focus was manipulated via cue validity or precue size, greater Stroop interference was observed when the attentional focus was narrow than when it was broad. However, when the participants were induced to adopt a comparable attentional focus in a dual-task paradigm, the differential Stroop interference was eliminated. Furthermore, contrary to the prediction of the perceptual load hypothesis, different levels of processing load did not lead to differential Stroop interference. These results emphasize the importance of stimulus structure in understanding distractor processing. They indicate that when relevant and irrelevant information pertains to the same object, narrowing attentional focus increases distractor processing, and perceptual load has a negligible effect on the extent of distractor processing.