Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-07-2017 | Original Article

Perceptual similarity induces overinvestment in an attentional blink task

Auteurs: Ellen MacLellan, David I. Shore, Bruce Milliken

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2018

Abstract

The overinvestment account of the attentional blink (AB) posits that the AB results from the allocation of more resources than necessary to encode a first target (T1), which in turn lowers the resources available to encode a second target (T2) shortly thereafter. Across two experiments, we examined whether resource allocation to T1, and thus overinvestment that results in an AB effect, might be limited by perceptual mechanisms that evaluate the need for encoding resources. The key result observed in both experiments was that a relatively easy to encode T1 can nonetheless result in an AB when it is perceptually similar to a more difficult to encode T1. The importance of experimental context as an influence on the allocation, or overinvestment, of attentional resources to T1 is highlighted by these findings.

vorige artikel Visuomotor and motorvisual priming with different types of set-level congruency: evidence in support of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model (PCM)

volgende artikel Intentional binding of two effects

A mixed factor ANOVA was also conducted on mean T2 performance for row-of-X trials only, for the 75% two-word block in Experiment 1 and the mixed block in Experiment 2. This analysis treated experiment as a between-subjects factor and SOA (233/467/700 ms) as a within-subject factor. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of SOA, F (2,72) = 7.5, p = .001, \( \eta_{\text{p}}^{2} \) = .17, that was moderated by a significant experiment by SOA interaction, F (2,72) = 13.6, p < .001, \( \eta_{\text{p}}^{2} \) = .27. Subsequent analyses revealed an effect of experiment at the middle SOA only, F (1,36) = 6.9, p = .01, \( \eta_{\text{p}}^{2} \) = .16. Performance for row-of-X trials was significantly less accurate at this SOA in the mixed context of Experiment 2 (.73) than in the 75% selection context of Experiment 1(.94). However, the effect of experiment approached significance at the 233 ms SOA. Here, performance for row-of-X trials was slightly more accurate at this SOA in the mixed context of Experiment 2 (.93) than in the 75% selection context of Experiment 1(.87; p = 1).

Akyürek, E. G., Toffanin, P., & Hommel, B. (2008). Adaptive control of event integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 569–577.PubMed

Arend, I., Johnston, S., & Shapiro, K. (2006). Task-irrelevant visual motion and flicker attenuate the attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 600–607.CrossRef

Awh, E., Sgarlata, A. M., & Kliestik, J. (2005). Resolving visual interference during covert spatial orienting: Online attentional control through static records of prior visual experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 192–206.CrossRef

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In: Conway, A., et al. (Ed.), Variation in Working Memory, (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. P. (1987). From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 105–113.CrossRef

Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71.CrossRefPubMed

Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 109–127.PubMed

Colzato, L. S., Hommel, B., & Shapiro, K. (2010). Religion and the attentional blink: Depth of faith predicts depth of the blink. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 147.PubMedPubMedCentral

Colzato, L. S., Sellaro, R., Paccani, C. R., & Hommel, B. (2014). Attentional control in the attentional blink is modulated by odor. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1510–1515.CrossRef

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.CrossRef

Crump, M., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321.CrossRef

Dale, G., & Arnell, K. M. (2010). Individual differences in dispositional focus of attention predict attentional blink magnitude. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 602–606.CrossRef

Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J. I., Ghorashi, S. S., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?. Psychological Research, 69(3), 191–200.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

Gratton, G., Coles, G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.CrossRef

Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174.CrossRef

Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700.CrossRefPubMed

MacLellan, E., Shore, D. I., & Milliken, B. (2015). Contextual control over selective attention: Evidence from a two-target method. Psychological Research, 79, 556–569.CrossRefPubMed

MacLellan, E., Shore, D.I. & Milliken, B. (2017). Sequence effects in a two target task: Intentional vs. automatic adaptations in cognitive control. (Under Review)

McLaughlin, E. N., Shore, D. I., & Klein, R. M. (2001). The attentional blink is immune to masking-induced data limits. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54, 169–196.CrossRef

Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Reason, 4, 61–64.

Olivers, C. N., & Meeter, M. (2008). A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review, 115(4), 836.CrossRefPubMed

Olivers, C. N., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The beneficial effect of concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 16, 265–269.CrossRefPubMed

Olivers, C. N., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 364–379.PubMed

Ouimet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Beyond task 1 difficulty: The duration of T1 encoding modulates the attentional blink. Visual Cognition, 15, 290–304.CrossRef

Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.PubMed

Schneider, W. (1988). Micro experimental laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 206–217.CrossRef

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRef

Shore, D. I., McLaughlin, E. N., & Klein, R. M. (2001). Modulation of the attentional blink by differential resource allocation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 318–324.CrossRefPubMed

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRef

Taatgen, N. A., Juvina, I., Schipper, M., Borst, J. P., & Martens, S. (2009). Too much control can hurt: A threaded cognition model of the attentional blink. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 1–29.CrossRefPubMed

Visser, T. A. W., & Ohan, J. L. (2007). Data-limited manipulations of T1 difficulty modulate the attentional blink. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 102–108.CrossRefPubMed

Weichselgartner, E., & Sperling, G. (1987). Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. Science, 238, 778–780.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Perceptual similarity induces overinvestment in an attentional blink task
Auteurs: Ellen MacLellan
David I. Shore
Bruce Milliken
Publicatiedatum: 28-07-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0889-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2018

Action–effects enhance explicit sequential learning

Author Correction: Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations

The many routes of mental navigation: contrasting the effects of a detailed and gist retrieval approach on using and forming spatial representations

Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations

The processing of price comparison is not holistic but componential

Distinct and flexible rates of online control