Literature DB >> 12489662

Attentional limitations in processing sequentially presented vibrotactile targets.

Anne P Hillstrom1, Kimron L Shapiro, Charles Spence.   

Abstract

In seven experiments, participants experienced rapid, serially presented streams of vibrations and responded to specific targets in the streams. In visual (and sometimes auditory) streams presented in this manner, it is typical to find a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when both must be reported and the second appears within a short temporal interval of the first, but not when identical displays are presented but only the second target must be reported (e.g., the attentional blink, or AB). This conventional AB pattern was found in the last experiment, in which judgments were about target location. However in the first six experiments reported here, in which judgments were about frequency, intensity, duration, or location of targets, accuracy was dependent on target separation regardless of whether or not the first target was reported. This unconventional pattern could represent an AB if the first target was attended even when it was not reported. The evidence for this claim and an alternative possibility that location judgments are especially sensitive to attention manipulations are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12489662     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194757

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  11 in total

1.  A crossmodal attentional blink between vision and touch.

Authors:  Salvador Soto-Faraco; Charles Spence; Katherine Fairbank; Alan Kingstone; Anne P Hillstrom; Kimron Shapiro
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

2.  Timing attention: cuing target onset interval attenuates the attentional blink.

Authors:  Sander Martens; Addie Johnson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-03

Review 3.  The attentional blink: past, present, and future of a blind spot in perceptual awareness.

Authors:  Sander Martens; Brad Wyble
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 8.989

4.  Relationships between attentional blink magnitude, RSVP target accuracy, and performance on other cognitive tasks.

Authors:  Karen M Arnell; Ashley E Howe; Marc F Joanisse; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-10

5.  Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities: an individual differences approach.

Authors:  Sander Martens; Manasa Kandula; John Duncan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Vision affects tactile target and distractor processing even when space is task-irrelevant.

Authors:  Ann-Katrin Wesslein; Charles Spence; Christian Frings
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-06

7.  Is Attentional Resource Allocation Across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent?

Authors:  Basil Wahn; Peter König
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-03-31

8.  Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration.

Authors:  Basil Wahn; Peter König
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-29

9.  Attentional blink is hierarchically modulated by phonological, morphological, semantic and lexical connections between two Chinese characters.

Authors:  Hong-Wen Cao; Kai-Bin Jin; Chao-Yi Li; Hong-Mei Yan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A phonologically congruent sound boosts a visual target into perceptual awareness.

Authors:  Ruth Adam; Uta Noppeney
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.