Search

The attentional blink is the marked deficit in awareness of a 2nd target (T2) when it is presented shortly after the 1st target (T1) in a stream of distractors. When the distractors between T1 and T2 are replaced by even more targets, the attentional blink is reduced or absent, indicating that the attentional blink results from online selection mechanisms that act in response to distracting input rather than being the result of T1-induced cognitive resource depletion. However, Dell'Acqua, Jolicoeur, Luria, and Pluchino (2009) recently contended that an attentional blink is found in the multiple-target case as long as the appropriate trial context and analyses are used, thus reinstating resource-based explanations of the attentional blink and challenging the selection account. Specifically, an attentional blink reemerges when target performance is analyzed contingent on previous target accuracy. We argue on theoretical and empirical grounds that neither the trial context nor the type of analysis poses h serious problem for selection accounts. We show that the attentional blink and previous target contingency effects can be dissociated, with the latter depending more on low-level, short-range competition. We conclude that selection mechanisms involved in filtering for targets still provide a strong and coherent explanation of the attentional blink. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When two targets (T1 and T2) are embedded in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), T2 is often missed (attentional blink, AB) if T2 follows T1 by less than 500 ms. Some have proposed that inhibition of a distractor following T1 contributes to the AB, but no direct evidence supports this proposal. This study examined distractor inhibition by assessing a distractor devaluation effect where inhibited items were evaluated less positively than controls. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a distractor presented just after T1 was evaluated less favorably when T2 was misidentified, independently of stimulus characteristics. Experiment 3 produced distractor devaluation in T2 incorrect trials when the evaluated distractor was the second item after T1. In contrast, a distractor presented before T1 was not devaluated (Experiment 4). Experiment 5 demonstrated that participants could not recognize presented distractors after an RSVP task, rejecting the possibility that memorized distractors were devalued. Results show a relationship between the devaluation of distractors following TI and the AB, providing the first direct evidence of the distractor inhibition during the AB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]