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.     

Direct evidence for a role of working memory in the attentional blink

Theories of selective attention often have a central memory component, which is commonly thought to be limited in some way and is thereby a potential bottleneck in the attentional process. There have been only a few attempts to validate this assertion, and they have produced mixed results. This study presents a specific examination of the link between working memory and attention by engaging active rather than passive memory operations. Two experiments are reported that provide evidence for the involvement of working memory in the attentional blink (AB) phenomenon. Memory loads of increasing size had a detrimental effect on attentional performance within the blink-sensitive interval, but not beyond. Speeded response requirements proved to modulate the AB, but were independent from the memory load effect. Theoretical implications for current models of selective attention are discussed.     

Cuing and stimulus probability effects on the P3 and the AB

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relation between the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200-500 ms after the first, and the P3 component of the event-related potential. Consistent with the view that the AB reflects a limited ability to consolidate information in working memory and that the P3 reflects working memory updating, increasing the amplitude of the P3 elicited by a first target (T1) by varying T1 probability (Experiment 1) or T1 cue validity (Experiment 2) led to an increase of the AB. Overall, the P3 elicited by T1 was greater when T2 was not identified than when it was. However, the correlation between P3 and AB magnitude across participants was not significant, leaving open the question of how direct the relationship between the P3 and the AB is.     

Effects of phonological length on the attentional blink for words

The authors tested whether the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in the ability to report a second target appearing within half a second of a first target, may reflect limitations for consolidating visual stimuli into working memory and awareness. Previous research has shown that people are severely limited in the rate that they can identify and report visual events presented in rapid succession. Word length was examined, a variable known to affect verbal working memory. Experiment 1 showed that the AB was modulated by the phonological length of the first target. Phonologically longer pseudowords triggered larger blink deficits. Experiment 2 also demonstrated the word-length effect on the AB using real-world stimuli, anagrams, that controlled for low-level visual differences between conditions. These data support proposals that the AB reflects a difficulty in consolidating information into working memory.     

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.     

Visual, auditory, and cross-modality dual-task costs: electrophysiological evidence for an amodal bottleneck on working memory consolidation

When two masked, attended targets (T1 and T2) are presented within approximately half a second of each other, report of T2 is poor, compared with when the targets are presented farther apart in time--a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB; Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992). Some researchers have suggested that an amodal bottleneck on working memory consolidation underlies the AB (see, e.g., Arnell & Jolicoeur, 1999). In the present work, T1 was masked, whereas T2 was unmasked. The modality of T1 (visual or auditory) and the modality of T2 (visual or auditory) were factorially manipulated across four experiments. For all modality combinations, T2's P3 event-related brain potential component was found to be delayed when T2 was presented soon after T1 (lag 3), compared with when T1 and T2 were presented farther apart (lag 8). Results suggest that the working memory consolidation bottleneck is amodal in nature, and provide evidence that visual, auditory, and cross-modality ABs all result from a bottleneck on consolidation operations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Do emotion-induced blindness and the attentional blink share underlying mechanisms? An event-related potential study of emotionally-arousing words

When two targets are presented within approximately 500 ms of each other in the context of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), participants’ ability to report the second target is reduced compared to when the targets are presented further apart in time. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). The AB is increased in magnitude when the first target is emotionally arousing. Emotionally arousing stimuli can also capture attention and create an AB-like effect even when these stimuli are presented as to-be-ignored distractor items in a single-target RSVP task. This phenomenon is known as emotion-induced blindness (EIB). The phenomenological similarity in the behavioral results associated with the AB with an emotional T1 and EIB suggest that these effects may result from similar underlying mechanisms – a hypothesis that we tested using event-related electrical brain potentials (ERPs). Behavioral results replicated those reported previously, demonstrating an enhanced AB following an emotionally arousing target and a clear EIB effect. In both paradigms highly arousing taboo/sexual words resulted in an increased early posterior negativity (EPN) component that has been suggested to represent early semantic activation and selection for further processing in working memory. In both paradigms taboo/sexual words also produced an increased late positive potential (LPP) component that has been suggested to represent consolidation of a stimulus in working memory. Therefore, ERP results provide evidence that the EIB and emotion-enhanced AB effects share a common underlying mechanism.     

Executive control processes of working memory predict attentional blink magnitude over and above storage capacity

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 phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). Colzato et al. (Psychon Bull Rev 14:1051–1057, 2007) used an individual differences approach to examine whether individual AB magnitude was predicted by individual differences in working memory (WM), using the operation span paradigm (OSPAN). They found that OSPAN score was inversely related to AB magnitude even when a fluid intelligence measure (Raven’s SPM) was partialled out. However, it is not clear from this study whether it was the executive control aspect of working memory, the capacity aspect of short-term memory, (or both), that related to AB magnitude. In the present study we used a variety of WM measures that required varying degrees of executive control. OSPAN was negatively related to AB magnitude with Raven’s SPM, reading comprehension, reading rate, and digit forward and backward partialled out. Backward and forward digit span did not predict AB magnitude. These results support the conclusion that a “working” executive component of WM predicts temporal limitations of selective attention beyond static STM capacity and general cognitive ability.     

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.     

The perceptual wink model of non-switching attentional blink tasks

The attentional blink (AB) is a temporary deficit for a second target (T2) when that target appears after a first target (T1). Although sophisticated models have been developed to explain the substantial AB literature in isolation, the current study considers how the AB relates to perceptual dynamics more broadly. We show that the time-course of the AB is closely related to the time course of the transition from positive to negative repetition priming effects in perceptual identification. Many AB tasks involve a switch between a T1 defined in one manner and a T2 defined in a different manner. Other AB tasks are non-switching, with all targets belonging to the same well-known category (e.g., letter targets versus number distractors) or sharing the same perceptual feature. We propose that these non-switching AB tasks reflect perceptual habituation for the target-defining attribute; thus, a ‘perceptual wink’, with perception of one attribute (target identity) undisturbed while perception of another (target detection) is impaired. On this account, the immediate benefit following T1 (lag-1 sparing) reflects positive repetition priming and the subsequent deficit (the blink) reflects negative repetition priming for the realization that a target occurred. In developing the perceptual wink model, we extended the nROUSE model of perceptual priming to explain the results of two new experiments combining the AB and identity repetitions. This establishes important connections between non-switching AB tasks and perceptual dynamics.     

Evidence for mental ability related individual differences in the attentional blink obtained by an analysis of the P300 component

Attentional blink (AB) refers to impaired identification of a target (T2) when this target follows a preceding target (T1) after about 150-450 ms within a stream of rapidly presented stimuli. Previous research on a possible relation between AB and mental ability (MA) turned out to be highly ambiguous. The present study investigated MA-related individual differences in consolidation of T2 in working memory during the AB as indicated by the P300 component of the event-related potential. Thirty high (HA) and 30 low MA (LA) female participants performed an AB task while their brain activity was recorded. The AB did not differ between the two groups. HA individuals exhibited a larger P300 amplitude and longer P300 latencies during the AB suggesting higher mental effort. This higher mental effort, however, did not result in better performance presumably because of more competition between target and distractor stimuli in HA than LA individuals.     

Attentional blink magnitude is predicted by the ability to keep irrelevant material out of working memory

Participants have difficulty in reporting the second of two masked targets if the second target is presented within 500 ms of the first target—an attentional blink (AB). Individual participants differ in the magnitude of their AB. The present study employed an individual differences design and two visual working memory tasks to examine whether visual working memory capacity and/or the ability to exclude irrelevant information from visual working memory (working memory filtering efficiency) could predict individual differences in the AB. Visual working memory capacity was positively related to filtering efficiency, but did not predict AB magnitude. However, the degree to which irrelevant stimuli were admitted into visual working memory (i.e., poor filtering efficiency) was positively correlated with AB magnitude over and above visual working memory capacity. Good filtering efficiency may benefit the AB by not allowing irrelevant RSVP distractors to gain access to working memory.     

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.     

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.