Search

uracy in identifying a target is impaired by a task-irrelevant singleton distractor even when the target and distractor appear in the same location. However, whether this impairment, known as a nonspatial interdimensional attentional capture, is contingent on a top-down attentional set or determined by stimulus-driven signals from distractors is unclear. To examine whether interdimensional attentional capture is affected by a top-down attentional set, the present study explicitly manipulated observers' search strategies (the singleton detection or feature search modes) and the number of objects consisting of the search items. The results indicated that interdimensional attentional capture occurred even under the feature search mode but that the capture effect decreased under this search mode irrespective of the number of distractors, suggesting that top-down knowledge was effective in modulating nonspatial interdimensional capture. [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]