Search

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 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]