The attentional blink is governed by a temporary loss of control

Identification of the second of two brief targets is impaired at intertarget lags of less than about 500 msec. We compared two accounts of thisattentional blink (AB) by manipulating the number of digit distractors—and hence the lag—inserted among three letter targets in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of digit distractors. On the resource-depletion hypothesis, longer lags provide more time for processing the leading target, thus releasing resources for the trailing target. On the temporary-loss-of-control (TLC) hypothesis, intervening distractors disrupt the current attentional set, producing a trailing-target deficit. Identification accuracy for trailing targets was unimpaired not only at lag 1 (conventional lag 1 sparing) but also at later lags, if preceded by another target. The results supported the TLC hypothesis but not the resource-depletion hypothesis. We conclude that the AB is caused by a disruption in attentional set when a distractor is presented while the central executive is busy processing a leading target.     

Data-limited manipulations of T1 difficulty modulate the attentional blink.

When two targets are embedded in a temporal stream of distractors, second-target identification is initially impaired and then gradually improves as intertarget interval lengthens (attentional blink; AB). According to bottleneck models of the AB, difficulty of first-target processing should modulate the magnitude of the second-target deficit. To test this, we examined whether a data-limited manipulation of T1 difficulty (forward masking) would modulate AB magnitude. In two experiments, we show that data-limited manipulations of T1 difficulty do affect the AB, so long as T1 is not masked by an immediately trailing distractor. When such a trailing item is present, the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB disappears.     

Masking T1 difficulty: processing time and the attenional blink

When observers are presented with 2 targets in rapid succession, identification of the 1st is highly accurate, whereas identification of the 2nd is impaired at brief intertarget intervals (i.e., 200-500 ms). This 2nd-target deficit is known as the attentional blink (AB). According to bottleneck models, the AB arises because attending to the 1st target delays allocation of attention to the 2nd target. Thus, these models predict that increasing 1st-target processing time will increase the magnitude of the AB. Previous tests of this prediction have yielded mixed results. The present work suggests that one factor contributing to this uncertainty is masking of the 1st target: When this mask is omitted, processing time and AB magnitude are reliably related. These findings clarify the role of 1st-target masking in the AB and support the validity of the bottleneck account.     

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

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

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: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired if it is presented less than about 500 ms after the first. Theoretical accounts of this second-target deficit, known as attentional blink (AB), have relied on some form of limited attentional resource that is allocated to the leading target at the expense of the trailing target. Three experiments in the present study reveal a failure of resource-limitation accounts to explain why the AB is absent when the targets consist of a stream of three items belonging to the same category (e.g., letters or digits). The AB is reinstated, however, if an item from a different category is inserted in the target string. This result, and all major results in the AB literature, is explained by the hypothesis that the AB arises from a temporary loss of control over the prevailing attentional set. This lapse in control renders the observer vulnerable to an exogenously-triggered switch in attentional set.     

When similarity leads to sparing: probing mechanisms underlying the attentional blink

When two targets are embedded in a temporal stream of distractors, second-target identification is initially impaired and then gradually improves as inter-target interval lengthens (attentional blink; AB). Notably, in about half of the published studies, this deficit is partially ameliorated when the targets follow one another directly, a condition known as “lag-1 sparing”. Here, we probe the impact of target-distractor similarity on lag-1 sparing, with the surprising finding that while high similarity impairs second-target accuracy at all subsequent lags, it actually improves accuracy when the targets follow one another directly. We suggest that this improvement reflects the positive influence of over-committing resources to target processing in the AB.     

Memory reloaded: Memory load effects in the attentional blink

When two targets are presented in rapid succession, identification of the first is nearly perfect, while identification of the second is impaired when it follows the first by less than about 700 ms. According to bottleneck models, this attentional blink (AB) occurs because the second target is unable to gain access to capacity-limited working memory processes already occupied by the first target. Evidence for this hypothesis, however, has been mixed, with recent reports suggesting that increasing working memory load does not affect the AB. The present paper explores possible reasons for failures to find a link between memory load and the AB and shows that a reliable effect of load can be obtained when the item directly after T1 (Target 1) is omitted. This finding provides initial evidence that working memory load can influence the AB and additional evidence for a link between T1 processing time and the AB predicted by bottleneck models.     

Loci of signal probability effects and of the attentional blink bottleneck

To investigate the locus of signal probability effects and the influence of stimulus quality on this locus, the authors manipulated probability in Task 2 of a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The effect was additive with stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) when the target was not masked but underadditive with decreasing SOA when the target was masked. Even with masking, however, a range of probabilities had effects additive with SOA. The results suggest loci of stimulus probability before the PRP bottleneck as well as at or after the bottleneck. A second issue addressed was the locus of interference in the attentional blink (AB). The AB was larger when the probability of the first of 2 targets was lower. The results lead to the conclusion that one cause of the AB effect is a locus at least as late as the PRP bottleneck.     

Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately 500 msec of each other, accurate report of the second target (T2) suffers more than when targets are presented farther apart in time--an attentional blink (AB). In the present study, the AB was found to be larger when taboo words were presented as a first target (T1), as compared with the AB found when emotionally neutral, negative, or positive words were presented as T1, suggesting that taboo words received preferential attentional processing. Comparable results were also obtained when taboo words were presented as to-be-ignored distractors in single-target rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Arousal, but not valence, ratings of the emotional words predicted accuracy on subsequent targets in both dual- and single-task RSVP. Recognition memory for taboo words accounted fully for the negative relationships between arousal ratings and accuracy on subsequent targets, suggesting that arousal-triggered changes in attentional allocation influenced encoding of taboo words at the time they were encountered.     

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).     

注意瞬脱的瓶颈理论

综述了注意瞬脱的瓶颈理论的相关研究。主要包括：（1）高级中枢加工瓶颈形成的两阶段模型、中枢干扰理论、TLC假设和注意的延迟投入假设;（2）目标选择的控制瓶颈形成的输入过滤器与目标模板假说;（3）同时类型系列标记模型。最后从瓶颈理论在整个注意瞬脱理论中的片面性和注意瞬脱的瓶颈理论本身的不完善性两方面剖析了瓶颈理论的局限性     

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.     

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.     

Target–target similarity and the attentional blink: Task-relevance matters!

Studies of the attentional blink (AB) indicate that similarity modulates the magnitude of the impairment in reporting the second of two masked targets. The present experiments tested whether similarity-based modulations of the AB are determined by all object dimensions or by task-relevant dimensions only. Similarity between target faces was manipulated on two dimensions, only one of which was task relevant. The results indicated that similarity on the task-relevant dimension modulated the AB, whereas similarity on task-irrelevant dimension did not. These results suggest that selection during the AB can occur on the level of task-relevant dimensions.     

Individual differences in dispositional focus of attention predict attentional blink magnitude

When identifying two targets presented in a rapid serial visual presentation stream, one’s accuracy on the second target is reduced if it is presented shortly (within 500 msec) after the first target—an attentional blink (AB). Individuals differ greatly in the size of their AB. One way to learn about the AB is to understand what underlies these individual differences. Recent studies have suggested that when a broadened or diffused attentional state is induced, the AB deficit can be attenuated. The present study examined whether natural (dispositional) individual differences in focus and diffusion of attention as assessed by the global/local task could predict performance on the AB task. Performance that was consistent with diffusion correlated negatively with AB size, and performance that was consistent with focusing correlated positively with AB size, showing that dispositional focus and diffusion of attention can predict individual differences in the AB. These findings are consistent with the Olivers and Nieuwenhuis (2006) overinvestment hypothesis.     

Relationships between attentional blink magnitude, RSVP target accuracy, and performance on other cognitive tasks

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately half a second of each other, performance on the second target (T2) suffers, relative to when the targets are presented further apart in time or when the first target (T1) can be ignored. This pattern of results is known as the attentional blink (AB). Typically, participants differ with respect to the magnitude of their AB and their overall target accuracy. Despite investigations as to what participant characteristics may influence AB performance (e.g., age, brain damage, or mood state), there has been no focused examination of whether individual differences in cognitive performance measures predict the magnitude of the AB or overall rapid serial visual presentation(RSVP) target accuracy. Our university studentparticipants performed single-target and dual-target RSVP tasks, as well as a selection of cognitive tasks that did not use RSVP presentations, with color, letter, digit, and object stimuli. Overall performance on each of the RSVP targets (T1, T2, and single target) was predicted by speeded manual and vocal identification times to isolated stimuli and by performance with other RSVP targets. However, the magnitude of the AB was predicted only by T1 accuracy, not by any other performance measures. The results suggest that individual differences in AB magnitude do not result from differences in effective RSVP target encoding and are not well explained by varied information-processing abilities.     

Personality predicts temporal attention costs in the attentional blink paradigm

Accuracy for a second target is reduced when it is presented within 500 msec of a first target. This phenomenon is called the attentional blink (AB). A diffused attentional state (via positive affect or an additional task) has been shown to reduce the AB, whereas a focused attentional state (via negative affect) has been shown to increase the AB, purportedly by influencing the amount of attentional investment and flexibility. In the present study, individual differences in personality traits related to positive affect, negative affect, and cognitive flexibility were used to predict individual differences in AB magnitude. As hypothesized, greater extraversion and openness predicted smaller ABs. Greater openness also predicted higher overall target accuracy. Greater neuroticism predicted larger ABs and lower overall target accuracy. Conscientiousness, associated with less cognitive flexibility, predicted lower overall target accuracy. Personality may modulate the AB by influencing overinvestment via dispositional tendencies toward more or less stringent or capable cognitive control.     

Delayed masking and the auditory attentional blink: A test for retrieval competition and bottleneck models

The attentional blink (AB) corresponds to a transient deficit in reporting the second (T2) of two targets embedded in a rapid sequence of distractors. The retrieval competition (Shapiro, Raymond & Arnell, 1994) and bottleneck models (Chun & Potter, 1995; Jolicoeur, 1998) predict the attenuation of the deficit with the extension of the delay between T2 and its mask. This prediction was tested using auditory sequences of nonverbal stimuli in which the T2-mask interval was systematically varied. The magnitude of the auditory AB diminished with the lengthening of the interval from 50 to 150 ms while no time-locked deficit was observed with the longest (350 ms) and the shortest (10 ms) intervals. These results suggest that presenting a mask after T2 is not sufficient to produce an auditory AB: The mask must be perceivable as an auditory event distinct from the target and occur before T2 consolidation. The present study also provides evidence that as in vision, AB deficits take place in the auditory domain when T2 is masked by interruption but not by integration. Our findings are best accounted for in terms of bottlenecked processing limitations.