Abstract
The effects of perceptual load and those of target-stimulus degradation on distractor processing were contrasted. Targets either had to be found among several nontargets (high perceptual load) or were presented alone and were intact (low perceptual load), had reduced size and contrast (Experiment 1), had reduced duration and were followed by a mask (Experiment 2), or had reduced visual acuity owing to position eccentricity (Experiment 3) in thedegraded low-load condition. The results showed that both high perceptual load and target degradation increased general task difficulty, as is reflected by overall reaction times and accuracy. However, whereas high perceptual load reduced response-competition effects of irrelevant distractors, target degradation increased distractor effects. These results support the hypothesis that distractor processing depends on the extent to which high perceptual load exhausts attention in relevant processing, and provide a dissociation between perceptual load and general task difficulty and processing speed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bonnel, A., Possamai, C. A., &Schmitt, M. (1987). Early modulations of visual input: A study of attentional strategies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 757–776.
Bouma, M. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature,226, 177–178.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958).Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
Deutsch, J. A., &Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations.Psychological Review,70, 80–90.
Deutsch, J. A., &Deutsch, D. (1967). Comments on “Selective attention: Perception or response?”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 362–363.
Driver, J., &Tipper, S. P. (1989). On the nonselectivity of selective seeing: Contrasts between interference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 304–314.
Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 272–300.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.
Francolini, C. M., &Egeth, H. E. (1980). On the nonautomaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 331–342.
Gatti, S. V., &Egeth, H. E. (1978). Failure of spatial selectivity in vision.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,11, 181–184.
Graham, N. V. S. (1989).Visual pattern analyzers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huckauf, A., Heller, D., &Nazir, T. A. (1999). Lateral masking: Limitations of the feature interaction account.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 177–189.
Kane, M. J., May, C. P., Hasher, L., Rahhal, T., &Stoltzfus, E. R. (1997). Dual mechanisms of negative priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 632–650.
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 451–468.
Lavie, N. (2000). Selective attention and cognitive control: Dissociating attentional functions through different types of load. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 175–194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lavie, N. (2001). The role of capacity limits in selective attention: Behavioral evidence and implications for neural activity. In J. Braun & C. Koch (Eds.),Visual attention and cortical circuits (pp. 49–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lavie, N., &Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of attentional selection: Efficient visual search results in inefficient rejection of distraction.Psychological Science,8, 395–398.
Lavie, N., &Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1038–1052.
Lavie, N., &Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 183–197.
Miller, J. (1991). The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 270–288.
Navon, D. (1989). The locus of attentional selection: Is it early, late, or neither?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,1, 47–68.
Norman, D.A., &Bobrow, D.G. (1975). On data-limited and resourcelimited processes.Cognitive Psychology,7, 44–64.
Rees, G., Frith, C., &Lavie, N. (1997). Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task.Science,278, 1616–1619.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Strasburger, H., Harvey, L. O., Jr., &Rentschler, I. (1991). Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 495–508.
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 571–590.
Treisman, A. [M.] (1991). Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 652–676.
Treisman, A.M., &Geffen, G. (1967). Selective attention: Perception and response?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 1–18.
Treisman, A.M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Uttal, W.R. (1987).The perception of dotted forms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolford, G., &Chambers, L. (1983). Lateral masking as a function of spacing.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 129–138.
Yantis, S., &Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a Medical Research Council (U.K.) career award and by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (U.K.) Grant 31/S09509 to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lavie, N., De Fockert, J.W. Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics 65, 202–212 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194795
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194795