Perceptual similarity induces overinvestment in an attentional blink task

Original Article

Abstract

The overinvestment account of the attentional blink (AB) posits that the AB results from the allocation of more resources than necessary to encode a first target (T1), which in turn lowers the resources available to encode a second target (T2) shortly thereafter. Across two experiments, we examined whether resource allocation to T1, and thus overinvestment that results in an AB effect, might be limited by perceptual mechanisms that evaluate the need for encoding resources. The key result observed in both experiments was that a relatively easy to encode T1 can nonetheless result in an AB when it is perceptually similar to a more difficult to encode T1. The importance of experimental context as an influence on the allocation, or overinvestment, of attentional resources to T1 is highlighted by these findings.

References

  1. Akyürek, E. G., Toffanin, P., & Hommel, B. (2008). Adaptive control of event integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 569–577.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arend, I., Johnston, S., & Shapiro, K. (2006). Task-irrelevant visual motion and flicker attenuate the attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 600–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awh, E., Sgarlata, A. M., & Kliestik, J. (2005). Resolving visual interference during covert spatial orienting: Online attentional control through static records of prior visual experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In: Conway, A., et al. (Ed.), Variation in Working Memory, (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. P. (1987). From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 109–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Colzato, L. S., Hommel, B., & Shapiro, K. (2010). Religion and the attentional blink: Depth of faith predicts depth of the blink. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 147.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Colzato, L. S., Sellaro, R., Paccani, C. R., & Hommel, B. (2014). Attentional control in the attentional blink is modulated by odor. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1510–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crump, M., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale, G., & Arnell, K. M. (2010). Individual differences in dispositional focus of attention predict attentional blink magnitude. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 602–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J. I., Ghorashi, S. S., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?. Psychological Research, 69(3), 191–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gratton, G., Coles, G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLellan, E., Shore, D. I., & Milliken, B. (2015). Contextual control over selective attention: Evidence from a two-target method. Psychological Research, 79, 556–569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. MacLellan, E., Shore, D.I. & Milliken, B. (2017). Sequence effects in a two target task: Intentional vs. automatic adaptations in cognitive control. (Under Review)Google Scholar
  23. McLaughlin, E. N., Shore, D. I., & Klein, R. M. (2001). The attentional blink is immune to masking-induced data limits. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54, 169–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Reason, 4, 61–64.Google Scholar
  25. Olivers, C. N., & Meeter, M. (2008). A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review, 115(4), 836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Olivers, C. N., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The beneficial effect of concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 16, 265–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Olivers, C. N., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 364–379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ouimet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Beyond task 1 difficulty: The duration of T1 encoding modulates the attentional blink. Visual Cognition, 15, 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro experimental laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shore, D. I., McLaughlin, E. N., & Klein, R. M. (2001). Modulation of the attentional blink by differential resource allocation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 318–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taatgen, N. A., Juvina, I., Schipper, M., Borst, J. P., & Martens, S. (2009). Too much control can hurt: A threaded cognition model of the attentional blink. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 1–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Visser, T. A. W., & Ohan, J. L. (2007). Data-limited manipulations of T1 difficulty modulate the attentional blink. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 102–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Weichselgartner, E., & Sperling, G. (1987). Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. Science, 238, 778–780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen MacLellan
    • 1
  • David I. Shore
    • 1
  • Bruce Milliken
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and BehaviourMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations