Search

The article presents a study that determined whether the effect of mood state on the magnitude of the attentional blink should be interpreted in terms of the two axes of valence and arousal or in terms of the specificity of the connection between affect and attention. Fatigue was chosen to test these alternatives because fatigue should not increase the attentional blink, according to the two-axis view.

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N = 135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N = 95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention. [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]

Abstract: When two visual targets are presented in rapid succession, perception of the second target is deteriorated if the temporal lag between the two targets is short (0–300 ms). This ‘attentional blink’ (AB) phenomenon has been believed to occur only when the second target is followed by a backward mask or when there is a task switching between two targets. The present study revealed another determining factor for the occurrence of the AB, the presence or absence of a distractor stream. Five experiments examined the effect of possible confounding factors in the extant literature and suggested that the mere presence of a distractor stream affects the processing of targets even when the observers tried to ignore them, resulting in a processing delay. This effect is discussed in a model of AB deficit in terms of decay of the second target's representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selective attention plays an important role in identifying transient objects in a complex visual scene. Attentional control ability varies with observers. However, it is unclear what neural mechanisms are responsible for individual differences in attentional control ability. The present study used the following attentional blink paradigm: when two targets are to be identified in rapid serial visual presentation, the processing of the first target interrupts the identification of the second one appearing within 500 ms after the first-target onset. It has been assumed that the reduction of the second-target accuracy is mainly due to a transient inhibition of attentional reorienting from the first to the second target, which is modulated by the GABA system. Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy, we investigated whether individual variation of attentional blink magnitude is associated with GABA concentrations in the left prefrontal cortex (PFC), right posterior-parietal cortex (PPC), and visual cortex (V C) of humans. GABA concentrations in the PFC were related negatively to attentional blink magnitude and positively to the first-target accuracy. GABA concentrations in the PPC were positively correlated with attentional blink magnitude. However, GABA concentrations in the VC did not contribute to attentional blink magnitude and first-target accuracy. Our results suggest that frontoparietal inhibitory mechanisms are closely linked with individual differences in attentional processing and that functional roles of the GABAergic system in selective attention differ between the PFC and PPC. [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]