Individual differences within and across attentional blink tasks revisited

When the second of two targets (T2) is presented in close temporal proximity (within 200–500 ms) to the first (T1), the accuracy for reporting T2 is reduced relative to when the targets are separated by longer durations; this effect is known as the attentional blink (AB). Two recent studies have shown that individual differences in the magnitudes of the AB are stable both within a single testing session and over time. While one study found a large positive correlation between AB magnitudes when there was an attentional-set/task switch between T1 and T2 and when there was not, the other study found no relationship between the switch and no-switch paradigms. The present study was conducted to clarify this discrepancy by examining the reliability of, and relationships among, individual differences in AB performance on five different versions of the standard dual-target RSVP paradigm, three of which involved an attentional-set/task switch between T1 and T2, and two of which did not. Participants completed all five paradigms, and then returned 7–10 days later to again complete the same paradigms. The performance on all five versions was reliable both within and across testing sessions, demonstrating again that individual differences in AB performance are stable over time. In addition, all five AB versions were significantly intercorrelated, although the strengths of the relationships differed depending on the extent to which the T1 and T2 attentional sets/tasks overlapped. These findings provide evidence that multiple distinct dual-target RSVP tasks do share underlying variability, providing support for the use of different versions of the paradigm in the literature.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

视觉注意瞬脱实验范式述评

视觉注意瞬脱是指在很短时间内(约500 ms)序列呈现两个目标刺激时,被试对第二个目标正确报告率显著下降的现象。近年来国外注意瞬脱实验研究渐成选择性注意研究领域的热点, 其实验范式疏理为两大类-- 单刺激序列RSVP范式和多刺激序列RSVP范式。综述对两类范式的诸多变式进行了分析与评估, 提出了影响注意瞬脱实验范式发展的四项实验因素和今后视觉注意瞬脱实验范式发展的五种趋势。     

An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: Evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts

Several accounts of the attentional blink (AB) have postulated that this dual-target deficit occurs because of limited-capacity attentional resources being devoted to processing the first target at the expense of the second (resource depletion accounts; e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995). Recent accounts have challenged this model (e.g., Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007), proposing instead that the AB occurs because of subjects’ inability to maintain appropriate levels of attentional control when targets are separated by distractors. Accordingly, the AB is eliminated when three targets from the same attentional set are presented sequentially in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream. However, under such conditions poorer identification of the first target is typically observed, hinting at a potential trade-off between the first and subsequent target performances. Consistent with this hypothesis, the present study shows that an AB is observed for successive targets from the same attentional set in an RSVP stream when the first target powerfully captures attention. These results suggest that resource depletion contributes significantly to the AB.     

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.     

Two noncontiguous locations can be attended concurrently: Evidence from the attentional blink

When two targets (T1 and T2) are inserted in a rapid stream of visual distractors (RSVP), detection/ identification accuracy of T2 is impaired at intertarget lags shorter than about 500 msec. This phenomenon, the attentional blink (AB), has been regarded as a hallmark of the inability of the visual system to process multiple items. Yet, paradoxically, the AB is much reduced when T2 is presented directly after T1 (known aslag-1 sparing). Because lag-1 sparing is said to depend on observers’ spatial attention being set to process the first target, we predicted that if observers are set to monitor two RSVP streams, they could process more than two items; that is, two instances of lag-1 sparing would be obtained concurrently. The results of three experiments indicated that this was the case. When observers searched for two targets in each of two synchronized RSVP streams, lag-1 sparing occurred concurrently in both streams. These results suggest that the visual system can handle up to four items at one moment under RSVP circumstances.     

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.     

Attentional and perceptual factors affecting the attentional blink for faces and objects

When 2 different visual targets presented among different distracters in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) are separated by 400 ms or less, detection and identification of the 2nd targets are reduced relative to longer time intervals. This phenomenon, termed the attentional blink (AB), is attributed to the temporary engagement of a limited-capacity attentional system by the 1st target, which reduces resources available for processing the 2nd target. Although AB has been reliably obtained with many stimulus types, it has not been found for faces (E. Awh et al., 2004). In the present study, the authors investigate the underpinnings of this immunity. Unveiling circumstances in which AB occurs within and across faces and other categories, the authors demonstrate that a multichannel model cannot account for the absence of AB effects on faces. The authors suggest instead that perceptual salience of the face within the distracters' series as well as the available resources determine whether or not faces are blinked in RSVP.     

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.     

Direction of association between targets in a RSVP task influences priming at very short but not long SOAs

When two targets are presented using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) and the interval between the targets is 200–500 ms, detection or identification of the second target is impaired. This impairment in second target report is known as the attentional blink (AB). This study sought to examine the impact of the direction of target association on priming during an AB task using very short and long SOAs. Two experiments were conducted using dual-stream RSVP tasks and targets that either shared an associative relationship or were unrelated to one another. The direction of association between the targets was also varied so that associatively related targets were presented in the forward (strongest association from target 1 to target 2) or backward directions of association (strongest association from target 2 to target 1). In Experiment 1 very short SOAs between targets (27–213 ms) were used. Priming was evident at the same SOAs for both targets presented in the backward direction of association. However, for targets presented in the forward direction of association, priming occurred for target 1 and target 2 at different SOAs. Experiment 2 used longer SOAs between targets (107 to 535 ms) and it was determined that while direction of association between the targets did not affect priming, there was a larger priming effect for target 2 than for target 1. The results of the two experiments indicate that direction of association between targets influences priming in RSVP tasks that use very short but not long SOAs. The results are discussed in relation to the two-stage response competition model of Potter et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:1149–1162, 2002).     

The time course of semantic and associative priming effects is different in an attentional blink task

When two targets are presented using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) and the interval between the targets is 200–500 ms, report of the second target is impaired, a phenomena known as the attentional blink (AB). This study examined the time course of semantic-only and associate–semantic priming effects during an AB task. Three RSVP experiments were conducted using targets that shared either a semantic-only or an associative–semantic relationship. The results of the three experiments demonstrated semantic-only priming effects at the shortest stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Associative–semantic priming was evident at shorter and longer SOAs. This suggests that priming in an AB task is driven by conceptual overlap facilitating lexical access at short SOAs and with longer SOAs lexical access benefits from word associations links between targets.     

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.     

Right visual-field advantage in the attentional blink: Asymmetry in attentional gating across time and space

When two targets are presented in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), recognition of the second target (T2) is usually reduced when presented 150–500 ms after the first target, demonstrating an attentional blink (AB). Previous studies have shown a left visual-field (LVF) advantage in T2 recognition, when T2 was embedded in one of two streams, demanding top-down attention for its recognition. Here, we explored the impact of bottom-up saliency on spatial asymmetry in the AB. When T2 was spatially shifted outside from the RSVP, creating an abrupt onset of T2, right T2s showed a right visual-field (RVF) advantage. In lag-1 trials, right T2s were not only better recognized, but also showed a low T1-T2 order error rate. In contrast, recognized left T2s exhibited high order error rate. Without abrupt onset, symmetrical AB was found and order error rate was similarly low in both sides. Follow-up experiments showed that, while RVF advantage was related to bottom-up saliency, order errors were affected by T1 mask. The discrepancy between LVF and RVF advantage in the AB could be resolved in terms of two mechanisms of attentional gating: top-down attentional gating, which is biased towards LVF, and bottom-up attentional gating, which is biased towards RVF.     

Short-term memory and the attentional blink: Capacity versus content

When people monitor the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of stimuli for two targets (T1 and T2), they often miss T2 if it falls into a time window of about half a second after T1 onset, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB). We found that overall performance in an RSVP task was impaired by a concurrent short-term memory (STM) task and, furthermore, that this effect increased when STM load was higher and when its content was more task relevant. Loading visually defined stimuli and adding articulatory suppression further impaired performance on the RSVP task, but the size of the AB over time (i.e., T1-T2 lag) remained unaffected by load or content. This suggested that at least part of the performance in an RSVP task reflects interference between competing codes within STM, as interference models have held, whereas the AB proper reflects capacity limitations in the transfer to STM, as consolidation models have claimed.     

New objects,not new features,trigger the attentional blink

When two different targets must be selected from a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of images, perception of the second target will be markedly reduced if it is presented within about a half second of the first. Known as the attentional blink (AB), this effect reflects temporal limitations in attentional processes enabling awareness of image representations. I tested whether these limitations occur at an object or feature level of processing by presenting (in RSVP) multiple images of the same (old) object depicted in different orientations. Targets were defined by new features added either to this or to a new object. When the first target feature appeared on the old object, no AB effects were found even when the second target was a new object. When a new object carried the first target feature, an AB effect was found even when the second target feature appeared on the same "new" object. The AB appears to reflect limitations in the creation of new object representations, rather than temporal limitations of awareness per se.     

On the failure of distractor inhibition in the attentional blink

We investigated whether a failure of distractor inhibition contributes to the magnitude of theattentional blink (AB). Subjects viewed dual-targetrapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams, where the distractors that directly preceded and succeeded Target 2 (T2−1, T2+1) were either identical to each other or different. Previously, Dux, Coltheart, and Harris (2006) found enhanced target report in RSVP due to repetition of distractors around Target 1, which was interpreted as evidence of distractor inhibition. Here, distractor repetition again attenuated the AB, but only at lag 2, the Target 2 position where T2−1 would have undergone attentive processing. Our results demonstrate that the distractor repetition effect is dependent on attention, and that a failure to inhibit distractors contributes to the AB.     

Resting EEG in alpha and beta bands predicts individual differences in attentional blink magnitude

Accuracy for a second target (T2) is reduced when it is presented within 500 ms of a first target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) - an attentional blink (AB). There are reliable individual differences in the magnitude of the AB. Recent evidence has shown that the attentional approach that an individual typically adopts during a task or in anticipation of a task, as indicated by various measures, predicts individual differences in the AB deficit. It has yet to be observed whether indices of attentional approach when not engaged in a goal-directed task are also relevant to individual differences in the AB. The current studies investigated individual differences in the AB by examining their relationship with attention at rest using quantitative measures of EEG. Greater levels of alpha at rest were associated with larger AB magnitudes, where greater levels of beta at rest were associated with smaller AB magnitudes. Furthermore, individuals with more beta than alpha demonstrated a smaller AB effect than individuals with more alpha than beta. Our results suggest that greater attentional engagement at rest, when not engaged in a goal-directed task, is associated with smaller AB magnitudes.     

Perception of temporal order is impaired during the time course of the attentional blink

Identification accuracy for the second of two target (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). Does this attentional blink (AB) also impair the perception of the order of presentation? In four experiments, three letter targets (T1, T2, T3) were inserted in a stream of digit distractors displayed in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), with T3 always presented directly after T2. The T1-T2 lag was varied to assess the perception of T2-T3 temporal order throughout the period of the AB. Factorial manipulation of the presence or absence of distractors before T1 and between T1 and T2 had similar effects on accuracy and on perception of temporal order. It is important to note that perception of temporal order suffered even when accuracy was unimpaired. This pattern of results is consistent with prior-entry theories of the perception of temporal order but not with episodic-integration theories. Simulations based on the Episodic Simultaneous Type, Serial Token (eSTST) model (Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2009) provided excellent fits to the data except for the condition in which no distractors were presented in the RSVP stream.