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.     

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.     

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the finding that the perception of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented in close temporal proximity to the first target (T1). An exception to this deficit occurs when T2 immediately follows T1, an effect referred to as lag 1 sparing. So far, it has been unclear whether the AB is location specific or nonspatial in nature. Most demonstrations of an AB across different locations have shown an absence of lag 1 sparing, due to accompanying spatial switch costs. This means that the AB pattern itself may be explained through such switch costs. In this study, to minimize spatial switch costs, attention was made to move continuously across multiple locations by aid of a cue. An AB across different locations was found, including lag 1 sparing. We conclude that the AB and lag 1 sparing are not tied to a location but represent a central deficit, in line with current theory.     

The attentional blink with targets in different spatial locations

When two targets (T1 and T2) are displayed in rapid succession, accuracy of T2 identification varies as a function of the temporal lag between the targets (attentional blink, AB). In some studies, performance has been found to be most impaired at Lag 1—namely, when T2 followed T1 directly. In other studies, T2 performance at Lag 1 has been virtually unimpaired (Lag 1 sparing). In the present work, we examined how Lag 1 sparing is affected by attentional switches between targets displayed in the same location or in different locations. We found that Lag 1 sparing does not occur when a spatial shift is required between T1 and T2. This suggests that attention cannot be switched to a new location while the system is busy processing another stimulus. The results are explained by a modified version of an attentional gating model (Chun & Potter, 1995; Shapiro & Raymond, 1994).     

Negative attentional set in the attentional blink: control is not lost

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the finding that performance on the second of two targets (T1 and T2) in a rapidly presented stimulus stream is impaired when the targets are presented within 200-500 ms. This study investigates whether a negative attentional set, a form of top-down control, has an additional detrimental effect, and whether its influence is modulated by task demands. A negative attentional set was elicited through presentation of a pre-T1 distractor (D1), which belonged to the same category as T2. The presence of D1 impaired T2 performance, and this negative effect was generally larger inside than outside the AB. Moreover, this D1 effect remained constant or was augmented when the demand on T1 processing was enhanced. These findings demonstrate that a negative attentional set is maintained even though the central system is engaged in the in-depth processing of T1 during the AB.     

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

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

Goal-completion processes affect the attentional blink

People are notably limited in processing information from the outside world. For instance, they frequently fail to identify the second of two targets presented in close succession (attentional blink, AB). Theories of the AB have mostly focused upon early stimuli processing. However, here we show that late, goal-completion processes play an important role. We report findings from a rapid serial visual presentation task with three targets (T1, T2, and T3). Participants set to achieve one single goal for T1 and T2 (reporting the sum of the two), and to detect T3, showed an AB effect upon T3 but not upon T2, while participants set to achieve separate goals for the three targets showed an AB effect upon both T2 and T3. This finding raises questions about the nature of AB, suggesting that theories of the AB must take into account processes involved in goal switching.     

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.     

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.     

Sparing and impairing: Emotion modulation of the attentional blink and the spread of sparing in a 3-target RSVP task

The performance impairment (attentional blink, AB) on a second target (T2) when it is presented within 200-500 ms after a first target (T1) during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) is typically attributed to resource depletion. The AB does not occur when targets appear in immediate sequence (sparing). Recently, this account has been challenged by findings that the lag 1 sparing can spread to later lags when using a 3-target RSVP. Two experiments using the 3-targets RSVP investigated the relative contribution of resource depletion and attentional enhancement and/or inhibition on the AB and the sparing when T1 (Exp. 1) or T3 (Exp. 2) are emotionally salient. Findings showed a greater sparing for neutral T3s when preceded by negative compared with neutral T1s (Exp. 1) and for negative T3s (Exp. 2). In contrast, the AB on neutral T3s was greater after negative than after neutral T1s (Exp. 1), but it was reduced when T3 was negative (Exp. 2). The AB and the sparing also depended on how many targets before T3 were correctly reported. These findings indicate that although there is a cost for processing multiple targets, the emotional modulations of the AB and the sparing are better explained by an interplay between emotion-enhancement and capacity limitations on temporal selective attention.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

情绪性注意瞬脱的认知机制:来自行为与ERP的证据

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

The “beam of darkness”: Spreading of the attentional blink within and between objects

When two targets (T1 and T2) are inserted into a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of nontargets, observers are impaired at identifying T2 when it is presented within half a second after T1. This transient drop in performance, or attentional blink (AB), has been attributed to a temporary unavailability of task-critical processing resources. In the present study, we investigated how object-based attention modulates the AB, by presenting four synchronized RSVP streams in the corners of two rectangular bars (e.g., one above and one below fixation). The results from four experiments revealed that the AB increased within short temporal lags (of up to ～400 msec) when T2 was presented on the same, rather than a different, bar as T1 (with T1–T2 spatial distance controlled for). Thus, the AB is seen to spread across entire object groupings, suggesting that the spatiotemporal resolution of attention is modulated by global-object information.     

Neural correlates of dual task interference in rapid visual streams: an fMRI study

In rapid streams of visual stimuli, identification of a first target interferes with identification of a second target presented within the next half second (the attentional blink or AB). It has been suggested that rapid perceptual decisions under masking interference involve interactions between frontal and posterior cortex. We investigated the neural correlates of the AB using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Twelve subjects viewed rapid streams of black letters in which were embedded two white target letters (T1 and T2) separated by either 300 or 700 ms. As expected, fewer correct T2 identifications were observed in the short-delay condition. Corresponding fMRI statistical images showed increased activation in inferotemporal and posterior parietal cortex, but also in lateral frontal cortex and cerebellum in the short-delay condition suggesting that these brain regions are associated with perceptual decisions under masking interference.     

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.     

Objects and events in the attentional blink

When two visual targets, T1 and T2, are presented in rapid succession, detection or identification of T2 is almost universally degraded by the requirement to attend to T1 (the attentional blink, or AB). One interesting exception occurs when T1 is a brief gap in a continuous letter stream and the task is to discriminate its duration. One hypothesized explanation for this exception is that an AB is triggered only by attention to a patterned object. The results reported here eliminate this hypothesis. Duration judgments produced no AB whether the judged duration concerned a short gap in the letter stream (Experiment 1) or a letter presented for slightly longer than others (Experiment 2). When identification of an identical longer letter T1 was required (Experiment 3), rather than a duration judgment, the AB was reestablished. Direct perceptual judgments of letter streams with gaps embedded showed that whereas brief gaps result in the percept of a single, briefly hesitating stream, longer gaps result in the percept of two separate streams with a separating pause. Correspondingly, an AB was produced in Experiment 4, when participants were required to judge the duration of longer T1 gaps. We propose that, like spatially separated objects, temporal events are parsed into discrete, hierarchically organized events. An AB is triggered only when a new attended event is defined, either when a long pause creates a new perceived stream (Experiment 4) or when attention shifts from the stream to the letter level (Experiment 3).     

Different attentional blink tasks reflect distinct information processing limitations: an individual differences approach

To study the temporal dynamics and capacity-limits of attentional selection and encoding, researchers often employ the attentional blink (AB) phenomenon: subjects' impaired ability to report the second of two targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream that appear within 200-500 ms of one another. The AB has now been the subject of hundreds of scientific investigations, and a variety of different dual-target RSVP paradigms have been employed to study this failure of consciousness. The three most common are those where targets are defined categorically from distractors; those where target definition is based on featural information; and those where there is a set switch between T1 and T2, with the first target typically being featurally defined and T2 requiring a detection or discrimination judgment (probe task). An almost universally held assumption across all AB theories is that these three tasks measure the same deficit; however here, using an individual differences approach, we demonstrate that AB magnitude is only related across categorical and featural tasks. Thus, these paradigms appear to reflect a distinct cognitive limitation from that observed under set-switch conditions.