Search

How may feelings of love and hate impact people’s attention? We used a modified Attentional Blink (AB) task in which 300 participants were asked to categorise a name representing a person towards whom they felt either hate, love, or neutral (first target) plus identify a number word (second target), both embedded in a rapidly presented stream of other words. The lag to the second target was systematically varied. Contrary to our hypothesis, results revealed that both hated and loved names resulted in higher accuracy for the second target than neutral names, which was largely independent of lag. Also, there we observed no sustained transfer effects of love and hate onto neutral name trials. The findings differ from prior research on attentional blink and transient, non-personal, stimulus-driven emotions, suggesting that interpersonal feelings activate different attention-relevant mechanisms. Relevant to future research, we speculate that love and hate are motivators of goal-directed behaviour that facilitate subsequent information processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) tasks have been frequently used to assess attentional control in psychiatric samples; however, it is unclear whether RSVP tasks exhibits the psychometric properties necessary to assess these individual differences. In the current study, we examined the reliability and validity of single-target computerized RSVP task outcomes in a sample of 63 participants with moderate to severe psychiatric illness. At the group level, we observed the classical attentional blink phenomenon. At the individual level, conventional indices of attentional blink magnitude exhibited poor internal consistency. We empirically evaluated a novel index for assessing attentional blink magnitude using a single-target RSVP task that involves collapsing across experimental trials in which the attentional blink phenomenon occurs and disregarding performance on control trials, which suffer from ceiling effects. We found that this new index resulted in much improved reliability estimates. Both novel and conventional indices provided evidence of convergent validity. Consequently, this novel index may be worth examining and adopting for researchers interested in assessing individual differences in attentional blink magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neglect is a disabling neuropsychological syndrome that is frequently observed following right-hemispheric stroke. Affected individuals often present with multiple attentional deficits, ranging from reduced orienting towards contralesional space to a generalized impairment in maintaining attention over time. Although a degree of spontaneous recovery occurs in most patients, in some individuals this condition can be treatment-resistant with prominent ongoing non-spatial deficits. Further, there is a large inter-individual variability in response to different therapeutic approaches. Given its potential to alter neuronal excitability and affect neuroplasticity, non-invasive brain stimulation is a promising tool that could potentially be utilized to facilitate recovery. However, there are many outstanding questions regarding its implementation in this heterogeneous patient group. Here we provide a critical overview of the available evidence on the use of non-invasive electrical brain stimulation, focussing on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), to improve neglect and associated attentional deficits after right-hemispheric stroke. At present, there is insufficient robust evidence supporting the clinical use of tDCS to alleviate symptoms of neglect. Future research would benefit from careful study design, enhanced precision of electrical montages, multi-modal approaches exploring predictors of response, tailored dose-control applications and increased efforts to evaluate standalone tDCS versus its incorporation into combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attentional capture is assumed to automatically trigger attentional engagement, which gates working memory access. However, recent studies show that engagement is not a necessary outcome of capture and can be disrupted by manipulations that leave capture intact. In this commentary, I suggest that these findings have important implications for the capture debate. Mainly, they suggest that capture may have different consequences under different conditions. Moreover, they caution against interpreting the absence of evidence for engagement as evidence that capture did not occur. Finally, they open the door to future investigation about factors that determine and modulate engagement, independently from capture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]