Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What factors influence the switch from unitary to divided attention?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The focus of attention can be either unitary or divided and can transition from unitary to divided while performing a task. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether alerting hastens the transition from unitary to divided attention. To this end, we employed a dual-RSVP-stream Attentional Blink task (AB; impaired perception of the second of two rapidly sequential targets) with two pairs of letter targets (T1-pair and T2-pair). One component of the AB known as Lag-1 sparing (unimpaired perception of the T2-pair when it is presented directly after the T1-pair) occurs only when the T2-pair falls in an attended location. When the T2-pair falls in an unattended location, the converse pattern occurs (Lag-1 deficit). Accordingly, we used the incidence of Lag-1 sparing/deficit to index whether a location was attended or unattended. We found that presenting a brief brightening flash of the screen (alerting) just before the T1-pair hastened the transition from the initial unitary focus to a divided focus. In Experiment 2, we pitted the hastening account against an alternative hypothesis that the flash triggers phasic activation of the Locus Coeruleus—norepinephrine neuromodulatory system, thus resetting the underlying neural networks that mediate the distribution of attention, triggering a switch from unitary to divided attention. The results of Experiment 2 were incompatible with the hastening account, but consistent with the network-reset account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data will be provided upon reasonable request by email to the first author (LNJ).

Code availability

The code will be provided upon reasonable request by email to the first author (LNJ).

References

  • Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 834.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, I. H., Rose, R., & Ashe, V. M. (1970). Energy integration in intersensory facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichot, N. R., Cave, K. R., & Pashler, H. (1999). Visual selection mediated by location: Feature-based selection of noncontiguous locations. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouret, S., & Sara, S. J. (2005). Network reset: a simplified overarching theory of locus coeruleus noradrenaline function. Trends in Neurosciences, 28, 574–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castiello, U., & Umiltà, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cave, K. R., Bush, W. S., & Taylor, T. G. G. (2010). Split attention as part of a flexible attentional system for complex scenes: Comment on Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010). Psychological Review, 117, 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 21, 109.

  • Dubois, J., Hamker, F. H., & VanRullen, R. (2009). Attentional selection of noncontiguous locations: The spotlight is only transiently “split.” Journal of Vision, 9, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dux, P. E., & Coltheart, V. (2005). The meaning of the mask matters: Evidence of conceptual nterference in the attentional blink. Psychological Science, 16, 775–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Duque, D., & Posner, M. I. (1997). Relating the mechanisms of orienting and alerting. Neuropsychologia, 35, 477–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorashi, S. M. S., Jefferies, L. N., Kawahara, J. I., & Watanabe, K. (2008). Does attention accompany the conscious awareness of both location and identity of an object. Psyche, 14, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godijn, R., & Theeuwes, J. (2003). The relationship between exogenous and endogenous saccades and attention. In R. Radach, J. Hyona, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 3–26). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., & Di Lollo, V. (2009). Linear changes in the spatial extent of the focus of attention across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1020.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., & Di Lollo, V. (2017). Deployment of spatial attention to a structural framework: exogenous (alerting) and endogenous (goal-directed) factors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1933–1944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., & Di Lollo, V. (2019). Sudden events change old visual objects into new ones: A possible role for phasic activation of Locus Coeruleus. Psychological science, 30, 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2014). The flexible focus: Whether spatial attention is unitary or divided depends on observer goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 465.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2019). The exogenous and endogenous control of attentional focusing. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83, 989–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., Ghorashi, S., Kawahara, J. I., & Di Lollo, V. (2007). Ignorance is bliss: The role of observer expectation in dynamic spatial tuning of the attentional focus. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1162–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies, L. N., & Witt, J. B. (2019). First unitary, then divided: the temporal dynamics of dividing attention. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83, 1426–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicœur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawahara, J. I., & Yamada, Y. (2006). Two noncontiguous locations can be attended concurrently: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 594–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D., Ingling, A., Murray, R., & Broussard, C. (2007). What’s new in psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36(14), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A. F., & Hahn, S. (1995). Splitting the beam: Distribution of attention over noncontiguous regions of the visual field. Psychological Science, 6, 381–386.

  • Lagroix, H. E., Spalek, T. M., & Di Lollo, V. (2015). Does T1 difficulty modulate AB magnitude? It depends on how you measure It. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expertimentale, 69, 367.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMains, S. A., & Somers, D. C. (2004). Multiple spotlights of attentional selection in human visual cortex. Neuron, 42, 677–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMains, S. A., & Somers, D. C. (2005). Processing efficiency of divided spatial attention mechanisms in human visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 9444–9448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. M., Malinowski, P., Gruber, T., & Hillyard, S. A. (2003). Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature, 424, 309–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama, K., & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention. Vision Research, 29, 1631–1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual review of neuroscience, 35, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, S. I. (2000). Recall of two visual targets embedded in RSVP streams of distractors depends on their temporal and spatial relationship. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 1348–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M., Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., Rajkowski, J., & Aston-Jones, G. (1999). The role of locus coeruleus in the regulation of cognitive performance. Science, 283, 549–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, T. A. (2007). Masking T1 difficulty: processing time and the attenional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, T. A., Bischof, W. F., & Di Lollo, V. (1999). Attentional switching in spatial and nonspatial domains: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Australian Government through a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council to LNJ and VDL, and by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada to VDL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, 7 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia

    Lisa N. Jefferies & Mathea Ambrose

  2. Menzies Health Institute, Southport, QLD, Australia

    Lisa N. Jefferies

  3. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Vincent Di Lollo

Authors
  1. Lisa N. Jefferies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathea Ambrose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Di Lollo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa N. Jefferies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jefferies, L.N., Ambrose, M. & Di Lollo, V. What factors influence the switch from unitary to divided attention?. Psychological Research 86, 485–496 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01500-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01500-x

Search

Navigation