Search

Abstract: We considered the hypothesis that spontaneous dissociation between the direction of attention and eye movement causes encoding failure in change detection. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing eye fixation-related potentials (EFRP) at the encoding stage of a change blindness task; when participants freely inspect a scene containing an unmarked target region, in which a change will occur in a subsequent presentation. We measured EFRP amplitude prior to the execution of a saccade, depending on its starting or landing position relative to the target region. For those landings inside the target region, we found a difference in EFRP between correct detection and failure. Overall, correspondence between EFRP amplitude and the size of the saccade predicted successful detection of change; lack of correspondence was followed by change blindness. By contrast, saccade sizes and fixation durations around the target region were unrelated to subsequent change detection. Since correspondence between EFRP and eye movement indicates that overt attention was given to the target region, we concluded that overt attention is needed for successful encoding and that dissociation between eye movement and attention leads to change blindness. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Visual integration between target and irrelevant features leads to effects of irrelevant feature congruency (Stroop) or variation (Garner) on target classification performance. Presenting closed geometrical shapes as stimuli, we obtained Stroop and Garner effects of one part of their contour on another, in response times and error rates. The correlates of these effects in brain activity were observed in event-related potentials (ERP). Stroop effects occurred in ERP amplitude of the N1 and N2 components, starting about 170 ms after stimulus onset; Garner effects occurred in amplitude of the rising part of the P3 component, starting about 330 ms after stimulus onset. A subsequent point-wise analysis of Stroop and Garner effects in ERP showed that they belong to different, cascaded processing stages. The difference in time course between Stroop and Garner effects in ERP is in accordance with the view that both are produced by different mechanisms, the former sensitive to interference within presentations and the latter sensitive to interference between presentations. The brief interval of 330–370 ms after stimulus onset when these two mechanisms overlap may correspond to the central processing bottleneck, responsible for the combinations of Stroop and Garner effects generally found in response times. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]