Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 202–212 | Cite as

Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention

  • Nilli LavieEmail author
  • Jan W. De Fockert
Article

Abstract

The effects of perceptual load and those of target-stimulus degradation on distractor processing were contrasted. Targets either had to be found among several nontargets (high perceptual load) or were presented alone and were intact (low perceptual load), had reduced size and contrast (Experiment 1), had reduced duration and were followed by a mask (Experiment 2), or had reduced visual acuity owing to position eccentricity (Experiment 3) in thedegraded low-load condition. The results showed that both high perceptual load and target degradation increased general task difficulty, as is reflected by overall reaction times and accuracy. However, whereas high perceptual load reduced response-competition effects of irrelevant distractors, target degradation increased distractor effects. These results support the hypothesis that distractor processing depends on the extent to which high perceptual load exhausts attention in relevant processing, and provide a dissociation between perceptual load and general task difficulty and processing speed.

Keywords

Task Difficulty Target Letter Negative Priming Perceptual Load Distractor Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bonnel, A., Possamai, C. A., &Schmitt, M. (1987). Early modulations of visual input: A study of attentional strategies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 757–776.Google Scholar
  2. Bouma, M. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature,226, 177–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, D. E. (1958).Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutsch, J. A., &Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations.Psychological Review,70, 80–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutsch, J. A., &Deutsch, D. (1967). Comments on “Selective attention: Perception or response?”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 362–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, J., &Tipper, S. P. (1989). On the nonselectivity of selective seeing: Contrasts between interference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 272–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francolini, C. M., &Egeth, H. E. (1980). On the nonautomaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gatti, S. V., &Egeth, H. E. (1978). Failure of spatial selectivity in vision.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,11, 181–184.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, N. V. S. (1989).Visual pattern analyzers. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huckauf, A., Heller, D., &Nazir, T. A. (1999). Lateral masking: Limitations of the feature interaction account.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kane, M. J., May, C. P., Hasher, L., Rahhal, T., &Stoltzfus, E. R. (1997). Dual mechanisms of negative priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 632–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lavie, N. (2000). Selective attention and cognitive control: Dissociating attentional functions through different types of load. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 175–194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lavie, N. (2001). The role of capacity limits in selective attention: Behavioral evidence and implications for neural activity. In J. Braun & C. Koch (Eds.),Visual attention and cortical circuits (pp. 49–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lavie, N., &Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of attentional selection: Efficient visual search results in inefficient rejection of distraction.Psychological Science,8, 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavie, N., &Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1038–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lavie, N., &Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, J. (1991). The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 270–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Navon, D. (1989). The locus of attentional selection: Is it early, late, or neither?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,1, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norman, D.A., &Bobrow, D.G. (1975). On data-limited and resourcelimited processes.Cognitive Psychology,7, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rees, G., Frith, C., &Lavie, N. (1997). Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task.Science,278, 1616–1619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strasburger, H., Harvey, L. O., Jr., &Rentschler, I. (1991). Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 571–590.Google Scholar
  29. Treisman, A. [M.] (1991). Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 652–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Treisman, A.M., &Geffen, G. (1967). Selective attention: Perception and response?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 1–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Treisman, A.M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uttal, W.R. (1987).The perception of dotted forms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Wolford, G., &Chambers, L. (1983). Lateral masking as a function of spacing.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yantis, S., &Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondonEngland
  2. 2.Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations