Search

How does past experience influence visual search strategy (i.e., attentional set)? Recent reports have shown that, when given the option to use 1 of 2 attentional sets, observers persist with the set previously required in a training phase. Here, 2 related questions are addressed. First, does the training effect result only from perseveration with the currently active set or from long-term learning? Experiment 1 supported the latter alternative: When training and test were separated by up to 1 week, to prevent perseveration across the 2 sessions, the training effect was still obtained. Second, is the learning feature-specific (tuned to a precise set of colors) or more abstract? Experiments 2 and 3 supported the latter: When stimulus colors were switched between training and test to remove the possibility of feature-specific learning, the training effect again was obtained. These experiments indicate that attentional set is largely guided by long-term abstract learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When 2 targets are embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of distractors, perception of the second target is impaired when the intertarget lag is relatively short (less than 500 ms). Stimuli concurrently presented with the stream can affect this phenomenon, which is called attentional blink (AB). Previous studies have yielded conflicting results concerning the direction of the effect of added distractors on the AB: Some studies report an increased AB, whereas others report a decreased AB. The present study explored the boundary conditions of the exaggeration-reduction effects of distractors on the AB and investigated underlying mechanisms by manipulating the spatial configuration, timing, and type of distractors. The results indicate that the magnitude of the AB deficit increased, regardless of the type of distractors, when spatial uncertainty of the target locations was involved. The reduction of the AB occurred at optimal presentation of distractors and disappeared when the second target was presented at a suprathreshold level. These results suggest that stochastic resonance or the center-surround attentional mechanism may contribute to the reduction effect of distractors on the AB deficit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When observers try to identify successive targets in a visual stream at a rate of 100 ms per item, accuracy for the 2nd target is impaired for intertarget lags of 100-500 ms. Yet, when the same stream is presented more rapidly (e.g., 50 ms per item), this pattern reverses and a 1st-target deficit is obtained. M. C. Potter, A. Staub, and D. H. O'Connor (2002) accounted for these findings with a 2-stage competition theory (detection followed by identification) in which each stage is limited by its own pool of resources. In 5 experiments we varied the items that preceded the 1st target. The results show strong influences of these leading items on the 1st-target deficit, with almost no influence on 2nd-target accuracy. This is interpreted as strong support for multiple factors influencing target accuracy in rapid visual streams (J. Kawahara, J. T. Enns, & V. Di Lollo, 2006). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the attentional requirements in visual detection and identification. Application of attention blink (AB) to index attentional requirements in detection and identification tasks; Factors contributing to AB; Replication of the identification-with-trailing-mask.

Contextual cuing refers to the facilitation of performance in visual search due to the repetition of the same displays. Whereas previous studies have focused on contextual cuing within single-search trials, this study tested whether 1 trial facilitates visual search of the next trial. Participants searched for a T among Ls. In the training phase, the spatial layout on trial N-1 was predictive of the target location on trial N. In the testing phase, the predictive value was removed. Results revealed an intertrial temporal contextual cuing effect: Search speed became progressively shorter in the training phase, but it significantly lengthened during testing. The authors conclude that the visual system is capable of retaining spatial contextual memory established earlier to facilitate perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]