Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 670–675 | Cite as

Between-dimension flanker effects: A clarification with encouraging implications

  • J. Toby MordkoffEmail author
Brief Reports

Abstract

Models of selective and divided attention have evolved to be remarkably similar (e.g., Cohen & Shoup, 1997; Mordkoff & Yantis, 1993). One remaining difference between these models is the inclusion of all-or-none gates within a recent model of selective attention; the existence of these gates is supported by the absence of a between-dimension flanker effect. However, the existence of these gates is also inconsistent with a recent model of divided attention. In the present experiment, the evidence in favor of all-or-none gates was explored, with the following result: When the task involves colors and letters as the stimuli, and when display features are presented at equal rates, no evidence of these gates is observed. Although other issues remain to be resolved, these findings bode well for the general goal of a unified model of divided and selective attention.

Keywords

Selective Attention Divided Attention Target Feature Flanker Task Perceptual Module 
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. Cohen, A., &Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes.Cognitive Psychology,32, 128–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., &Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 529–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeYoe, E. A., &Van Essen, D. C. (1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex.Trends in Neurosciences,11, 219–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Garner, W. R. (1978). Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 99–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Lavie, N. (1997). Visual feature integration and focused attention: Response competition from multiple distractor features.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 543–556.Google Scholar
  8. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals.Cognitive Psychology,14, 247–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 419–434.Google Scholar
  10. Mordkoff, J. T. (1996). Selective attention and internal constraints: There is more to the flanker effect than biased contingencies. In A. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. Logan (Eds.),Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 483–502). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mordkoff, J. T., &Miller, J. (1993). Redundancy gains and coactivation with two different targets: The problem of target preferences and the effects of display frequency.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 527–535.Google Scholar
  12. Mordkoff, J. T., Miller, J., &Roch, A.-C. (1996). Absence of coactivation within the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mordkoff, J. T., &Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mordkoff, J. T., &Yantis, S. (1993). Dividing attention between color and shape: Evidence of coactivation.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 357–366.Google Scholar
  15. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 201–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPenn State UniversityUniversity Park

Personalised recommendations