Previous attentional set can induce an attentional blink with task-irrelevant initial targets

Identification of a second target is often impaired by the requirement to process a prior target in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). This is termed the attentional blink. Even when the first target is task irrelevant an attentional blink may occur providing this first target shares similar features with the second target (contingent capture). An RSVP experiment was undertaken to assess whether this first target can still cause an attentional blink when it did not require a response and did not share any features with the following target. The results revealed that such task-irrelevant targets can induce an attentional blink providing that they were task relevant on a previous block of trials. This suggests that irrelevant focal stimuli can distract attention on the basis of a previous attentional set.     

Previous attentional set can induce an attentional blink with task-irrelevant initial targets

Identification of a second target is often impaired by the requirement to process a prior target in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). This is termed the attentional blink. Even when the first target is task irrelevant an attentional blink may occur providing this first target shares similar features with the second target (contingent capture). An RSVP experiment was undertaken to assess whether this first target can still cause an attentional blink when it did not require a response and did not share any features with the following target. The results revealed that such task-irrelevant targets can induce an attentional blink providing that they were task relevant on a previous block of trials. This suggests that irrelevant focal stimuli can distract attention on the basis of a previous attentional set.     

On the saliency of negative stimuli: Evidence from attentional blink1

Abstract: When people are asked to detect two targets from a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream, impairment of recognition of the second target (T2) can be observed if the T2 is presented several hundred milliseconds later than the first target (T1). This phenomenon is known as attentional blink, and is considered to reflect some temporal characteristic of the attentional process. The aim of the present study was to use the attentional blink paradigm to examine whether the affective meaning of the stimuli could affect the magnitude of attentional blink. In Experiment 1, the valence of the T2 (neutral, positive, and negative) was manipulated. Significant T2 detection deficit was observed with neutral and positive T2 but not with negative T2. Experiment 2 demonstrated that non‐significant attentional blink in negative T2 in Experiment 1 could be attributed to the negative affective meaning of T2. Results are discussed in terms of the high saliency of negative information.     

Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink

Previous studies have shown that the capture of attention by an irrelevant stimulus can be eliminated by fore knowledge of the spatial location of the relevant target stimulus. To explore whether spatial certainty is sufficient to eliminate capture, four experiments are reported in which the spatial location of the target is certain but the temporal position is uncertain. Subjects viewed a central rapid serial visual presentation stream in which a target letter was defined by a particular color (e.g., red). On critical trials, irrelevant color singletons appeared in the periphery. In Experiments 1 and 2, peripheral singletons produced a decrement in central target identification that was contingent on the match between the singleton color and the target color. Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence that this decrement reflected a shift of spatial attention to the location of the distractor. The results suggest that spatial certainty is not sufficient to eliminate attentional capture and that attentional capture can result in a spatial "blink" that is conditional on top-down attentional control settings.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N = 135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N = 95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

基于快速系列视觉呈现范式的自我-他人面孔注意瞬脱效应研究

实验采用快速系列视觉呈现范式（Rapid serial visual presentation, RSVP）,观测自我面孔和他人面孔图片分别作为靶刺激和探测刺激时是否会出现注意瞬脱（Attentional Blink）现象。结果发现,如果探测刺激是自我面孔,被试识别正确率显著高于他人面孔,尤其当T1是他人面孔时,可使注意瞬脱完全消失;靶刺激和探测刺激均为他人面孔时,出现注意瞬脱现象。说明自我面孔不仅有很强的注意抢夺能力,也有很强的注意持续把持能力。     

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.     

No commonality between attentional capture and attentional blink

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N?=?135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N?=?95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention.     

Contingent attentional capture occurs by activated target congruence

Contingent attentional capture occurs when a stimulus property captures an observer's attention, usually related to the observer's top-down attentional set for target-defining properties. In this study, we examined whether contingent attentional capture occurs for a distractor that does not share the target-defining property at a physical level, but does share that property at an abstract level of representation. In a rapid serial visual presentation stream, we defined the target by color (e.g., a green-colored Japanese kanji character). Before the target onset, we presented a distractor that referred to the target-defining color (e.g., a white-colored character meaning "green"). We observed contingent attentional capture by the distractor, which was reflected by a deficit in identifying the subsequent target. This result suggests that because of the attentional set, stimuli were scanned on the basis of the target-defining property at an abstract semantic level of representation.     

Minds on the blink: The relationship between inattentional blindness and attentional blink

Failures of conscious visual awareness occur when specific task demands prevent an observer from detecting a stimulus that would otherwise be clearly visible. Two examples are inattentional blindness (IB) and attentional blink (AB). IB is the failure to detect an unexpected stimulus when attention is otherwise engaged. AB describes the inability to detect a second target that is presented within 180-500?ms of the first target. Previous research has suggested that similar cognitive processes underlie both IB and AB; however, they are distinct phenomena, and no evidence has directly linked the two. We tested the same group of observers on an IB task and an AB task. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that "non-noticers" who failed to detect an unexpected stimulus in the IB task also demonstrated a larger AB effect. This suggests that some observers may be more generally susceptible to failures of conscious visual awareness, regardless of specific context.     

Blink and shrink: the effect of the attentional blink on spatial processing

The detection or discrimination of the second of 2 targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task is often temporarily impaired-a phenomenon termed the attentional blink. This study demonstrated that the attentional blink also affects localization performance. Spatial cues pointed out the possible target positions in a subsequent visual search display. When cues were presented inside an attentional blink (as induced by an RSVP task), the observers' capacity to use them was reduced. This effect was not due to attention being highly focused, to general task switching costs, or to complete unawareness of the cues. Instead, the blink induced a systematic localization bias toward the fovea, reflecting what appears to be spatial compression.     

The attentional blink reveals sluggish attentional shifting in adolescents with specific language impairment

Rapid processing deficits have been the subject of much debate in the literature on specific language impairment (SLI). Hari and Renvall (2001) [Hari, R. & Renvall, H. (2001). Impaired processing of rapid stimulus sequences in dyslexia. Trends in cognitive sciences, 5, 525-532.] proposed that the source of this deficit can be attributed to sluggish attentional shifting abilities. That is, more time is required to shift attention between stimuli. To test this claim, 26 adolescents with SLI (divided into two subgroups to control for differences in non-verbal intelligence) and 14 controls were presented with a rapid serial visual presentation task. In this task participants were asked to detect two visual targets presented serially with distracter items with varying inter-target intervals (i.e., time difference between targets). This task was designed to elicit an attentional blink (AB). The AB describes the phenomenon whereby non-impaired individuals are less likely to report the second of two targets presented within 200-500ms of each other. After controlling for group differences in non-verbal intelligence, the SLI group was found to be significantly less accurate than the control group at successfully reporting the second target at inter-target intervals of 100, 200, 300, 400 and 800ms. The results were interpreted to suggest that adolescents with language impairments have an AB which differs from non-impaired individuals in both magnitude and duration.     

Repetition blindness: out of sight or out of mind?

Does repetition blindness represent a failure of perception or of memory? In Experiment 1, participants viewed rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) sentences. When critical words (C1 and C2) were orthographically similar, C2 was frequently omitted from serial report; however, repetition priming for C2 on a postsentence lexical decision task was equivalent whether or not C1 was similar to C2. In Experiment 2, participants monitored RSVP sentences for a predetermined target. Participants frequently failed to detect the target when it was preceded by an orthographically similar word. In Experiment 3, the authors investigated the role of the attentional blink in this effect. These experiments suggest that repetition blindness is a failure of conscious perception, consistent with predictions of the token-individuation hypothesis.     

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.     

Repetition blindness is immune to the central bottleneck

Theattentional blink (AB) andrepetition blindness (RB) phenomena refer to subjects’ impaired ability to detect the second of two different (AB) or identical (RB) target stimuli in a rapid serial visual presentation stream if they appear within 500 msec of one another. Despite the fact that the AB reveals a failure of conscious visual perception, it is at least partly due to limitations at central stages of information processing. Do all attentional limits to conscious perception have their locus at this central bottleneck? To address this question, here we investigated whether RB is affected by online response selection, a cognitive operation that requires central processing. The results indicate that, unlike the AB, RB does not result from central resource limitations. Evidently, temporal attentional limits to conscious perception can occur at multiple stages of information processing.     

A psychophysical measure of attention deficit in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

The authors explored the temporal mechanism of attention deficit in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In rapid serial visual presentation tasks in which two targets (T-sub-1 and T-sub-2) were presented in close temporal proximity among distractors, participants tried to identify T-sub-1 and detect T-sub-2 in one (dual-task) experiment and only to detect T-sub-2 in a second control (single-task) experiment. The sensitivity of T-sub-2 detection was analyzed using signal detection theory. The attentional blink--the impairment in T-sub-2 detection following the identification of T-sub-1--was increased in magnitude and protracted in the patients. Moreover, some ADHD children appeared to have a blink largely normal in magnitude but temporally displaced toward a later time. The authors hypothesize that a slower closing of the attention gate may mediate this specific attention impairment in ADHD children.     

Age Differences in the Magnitude of the Attentional Blink

When people attend to a target in a rapid sequence of items, their perception of a subsequent target is impaired for about 500 ms. This is termed the attentional blink. In the present experiment, a dual task rapid serial presentation task (Raymond, Shapiro & Arnell, 1992) was used as a measure of inhibitory function of younger and older adults. We found that the attentional blink was larger among older adults as compared to younger adults, supporting Hasher and Zacks' (1988) inhibitory deficit hypothesis and current models of the attentional blink.     

Dividing attention between two different categories and locations in rapid serial visual presentations

When two targets are embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors, perception of the second target is impaired if the intertarget lag is relatively short (less than 500 msec). This phenomenon, called attentional blink, has been attributed to a temporal inability of attentional resources. Nevertheless, a recent study found that observers could monitor two RSVP streams concurrently for up to four items presented in close succession, suggesting a much larger visual capacity limit. However, such high-capacity performance could be obtained by a rapid shift of attention, rather than concurrent monitoring of multiple locations. Therefore, the present study examined these alternatives. Results from six experiments indicate that observers can concurrently monitor two noncontiguous locations, even when targets and distractors are from different categories, such as digits, English alphabet letters, Japanese characters, and pseudocharacters. These results can be explained in terms of a modified input-filtering model in which a multidimensional attentional set can be flexibly configured at different spatial locations.     

The attentional blink reflects retrieval competition among multiple rapid serial visual presentation items: tests of an interference model

When people respond to a target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation stream, their perception of a subsequent target (T2) is impaired if the intertarget stimulus onset asynchrony is between about 100 and 500 ms. Three experiments supported the interference model's (K. L. Shapiro, J. E. Raymond, & K. M. Arnell, 1994) claim that this attentional blink reflects competition for retrieval among multiple items in visual short-term memory. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that items appearing during the blink are named as T2 on an above-chance proportion of trials when T2 must be identified. Experiment 3 demonstrated that both the size of the blink and sensitivity to T2 reflected the number of items competing for retrieval as T2; such competition, moreover, occurred at a conceptual or categorical level rather than at a purely visual one. The relationship between the interference and alternative models of the attentional blink is discussed.     

Attentional capture by emotional stimuli is modulated by semantic processing

The attentional blink paradigm was used to examine whether emotional stimuli always capture attention. The processing requirement for emotional stimuli in a rapid sequential visual presentation stream was manipulated to investigate the circumstances under which emotional distractors capture attention, as reflected in an enhanced attentional blink effect. Emotional distractors did not cause more interference than neutral distractors on target identification when perceptual or phonological processing of stimuli was required, showing that emotional processing is not as automatic as previously hypothesized. Only when semantic processing of stimuli was required did emotional distractors capture more attention than neutral distractors and increase attentional blink magnitude. Combining the results from 5 experiments, the authors conclude that semantic processing can modulate the attentional capture effect of emotional stimuli.