Skip to main content

Temporal dissociation between category-based and item-based processes in rejecting distractors

Psychological Research volume 73, pages 54–59 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Presenting a target-like distractor in an RSVP task deteriorates the detection of a trailing target, because the visual system has difficulties in rejecting the erroneously accepted distractor. We investigated whether the rejection process is influenced by observers’ knowledge regarding possible distractors. Observers identified a letter (target) embedded in a stream of line patterns, rejecting a preceding distractor (digit). We informed the observers about either the category of distractors (“digit”) or the identity of the distractor (e.g., “5”). The distractors with certain distractor–target lags increased identification errors, indicating that the distractor rejection process temporarily interfered with the target identification. When the observers knew the distractor identity, the rejection process started later than when they knew only the distractor category. These results suggest that the rejection process may operate at either the category or the individual-item level; however, the setting of the rejection level is not under the observers’ control.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Brand, J. (1971). Classification without identification in visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 178–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z. (2005). Selective attention and the perception of an attended nontarget object. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1493–1509.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coull, J. T., & Nobre, A. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: the neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 7426–7435.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J., Ghorashi, S. M., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: resource depletion or temporary loss of control? Psychological Research, 69, 191–200.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeth, H., Jonides, J., & Wall, S. (1972). Parallel processing of multi-element displays. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2002). Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 741–753.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ingling, N. W. (1972). Categorization: a mechanism for rapid information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 239–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingstone, A. (1992). Combining expectancies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 44, 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, W. S., & Mebane, M. W. (2006). Attentional capture triggers an attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 125–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Craven, K. M., Downing, P. E., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature, 401, 584–587.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivers, C. N. L., & Watson, D. G. (2006). Input control processes in rapid serial visual presentations: target selection and distractor inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1083–1092.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1979). Integration of information in visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 287–304.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W., Meinecke, C., & Hielscher, M. (1987). Effect of stimulus degration on category search. Acta Psychologica, 64, 187–206.

    PubMed  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, 849–860.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (to AA and to KW) and by Shimojo Implicit Brain Function Project, ERATO, Japan Science and Technology Agency (to KW).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan

    Atsunori Ariga & Katsumi Watanabe

  2. ERATO, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Atsugi, Kanagawa, Japan

    Katsumi Watanabe

  3. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Higashi, Tsukuba, Japan

    Katsumi Watanabe

Authors
  1. Atsunori Ariga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katsumi Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsunori Ariga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ariga, A., Watanabe, K. Temporal dissociation between category-based and item-based processes in rejecting distractors. Psychological Research 73, 54–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0143-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0143-9

Keywords

  • Visual System
  • Target Letter
  • Rapid Serial Visual Presentation
  • Distractor Condition
  • Attentional Selection