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.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

Task switching mediates the attentional blink even without backward masking

When two targets are presented in rapid succession, perception of the second target is impaired at short intertarget lags (100-700 msec). This attentional blink (AB) is thought to occur only when the second target is backward masked. To the contrary, we show that task switching between the targets can produce an AB even without masking (Experiments 1 and 3). Further, we show that task switching produces an AB only when the second target does not belong to a class of overlearned stimuli such as letters or digits (Experiments 1 and 4). When the second target is masked, however, an AB is invariably obtained regardless of switching or overlearning. We propose that task switching involves a time-consuming process of reconfiguration of the visual system, during which the representation of the second target decays beyond recognition, resulting in an AB deficit. We suggest that overlearned stimuli are encoded in a form that, while maskable, decays relatively slowly, thus outlasting the delay due to reconfiguration and avoiding the AB deficit.     

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.     

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.     

T1 difficulty and the attentional blink: expectancy versus backward masking

According to bottleneck models of the attentional blink (AB), first-target (T1) processing difficulty should be related to AB magnitude. Tests of this prediction that have varied T1 difficulty in the context of a standard AB paradigm, however, have yielded mixed results. The present work examines two factors that may mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB: observer expectancy and backward masking of T1. In two experiments, omission of the backward mask consistently yielded the predicted relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB. In contrast, observer expectancy influenced target identification accuracy but did not mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB.     

T1 difficulty and the attentional blink: Expectancy versus backward masking

According to bottleneck models of the attentional blink (AB), first-target (T1) processing difficulty should be related to AB magnitude. Tests of this prediction that have varied T1 difficulty in the context of a standard AB paradigm, however, have yielded mixed results. The present work examines two factors that may mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB: observer expectancy and backward masking of T1. In two experiments, omission of the backward mask consistently yielded the predicted relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB. In contrast, observer expectancy influenced target identification accuracy but did not mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB.     

Backward masking interrupts spatial attention,slows downstream processing,and limits conscious perception

The attentional blink (AB) is a difficulty in correctly processing a target when it follows one or more other targets after a short delay. When no backward mask is presented after the last critical target, there is no or little behavioral AB deficit. The mask plays an important role in limiting conscious access to target information. In this electrophysiological study, we tested the impact of masking on the deployment and engagement of attention by measuring the N2pc and P3 components in an RSVP paradigm. We found that the presence of a mask in an AB paradigm reduced the amplitude of the N2pc, P3a, and P3b components. In addition to reducing encoding in memory, masking also reduced the effectiveness of the deployment and engagement of attention on the last target. We discuss the role of these findings in the context of current masking, consciousness, and AB models.     

The attentional blink is not a unitary phenomenon

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

Span of apprehension in schizophrenic patients as a function of distractor masking and laterality.

Twenty schizophrenic patients, 10 depressed control patients, and 20 normal control subjects were compared in a forced-choice, target-detection method for assessing the span of apprehension. The detection task required the subject to report which of 2 target letters was presented among 7 other (distractor) letters. Performance accuracy was examined as a function of target location and whether the distractor letters were masked after their presentation. The backward masking of the distractors improved target-detection accuracy of both control groups but reduced accuracy of the schizophrenic group. In addition, schizophrenics performed particularly poorly on targets located in the left half or lower half of the display. These results suggest that response to the masking of distractors may be a new index of attentional shortcoming in schizophrenia. Various theoretical explanations for the target location findings are also discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Revisiting within-modality and cross-modality attentional blinks: Effects of target—distractor similarity

When two masked targets (T1 and T2) require attention and are presented within half a second of each other, the report accuracy for T2 is reduced, relative to when the two targets are presented farther apart in time. This effect is known as the attentional blink (AB). Potter, Chun, Banks, and Muckenhoupt (1998) argued that all AB-like effects observed when at least one of the targets was presented outside of the visual modality did not represent true instances of the AB, but instead were artifacts of task-set switching. However, in the Potter et al. experiments the presence or absence of task-set switching opportunities was confounded with the T2 task, as well as the alphanumeric class of T2 with respect to the distractors. In the present experiment, we examine the influence of T1 alphanumeric class, T2 alphanumeric class, and switching operations in a fully crossed design that unconfounds these factors. In contrast to the conclusions of Potter et al., the present results suggest that the T2 alphanumeric class can account for the pattern of ABs observed across conditions, without necessarily implicating a separate switch cost. The implications for theoretical models of the AB and the debate over the validity of cross-modal ABs are discussed.     

Revisiting within-modality and cross-modality attentional blinks: effects of target-distractor similarity

When two masked targets (T1 and T2) require attention and are presented within half a second of each other, the report accuracy for T2 is reduced, relative to when the two targets are presented farther apart in time. This effect is known as the attentional blink (AB). Potter, Chun, Banks, and Muckenhoupt (1998) argued that all AB-like effects observed when at least one of the targets was presented outside of the visual modality did not represent true instances of the AB, but instead were artifacts of task-set switching. However, in the Potter et al. experiments the presence or absence of task-set switching opportunities was confounded with the T2 task, as well as the alphanumeric class of T2 with respect to the distractors. In the present experiment, we examine the influence of T1 alphanumeric class, T2 alphanumeric class, and switching operations in a fully crossed design that unconfounds these factors. In contrast to the conclusions of Potter et al., the present results suggest that the T2 alphanumeric class can account for the pattern of ABs observed across conditions, without necessarily implicating a separate switch cost. The implications for theoretical models of the AB and the debate over the validity of cross-modal ABs are discussed.