Literature DB >> 15751472

Revisiting within-modality and cross-modality attentional blinks: effects of target-distractor similarity.

Karen M Arnell1, Ryan Jenkins.   

Abstract

When two masked targets (T1 and T2) require attention and are presented within half a second of each other, the report accuracy for T2 is reduced, relative to when the two targets are presented farther apart in time. This effect is known as the attentional blink (AB). Potter, Chun, Banks, and Muckenhoupt (1998) argued that all AB-like effects observed when at least one of the targets was presented outside of the visual modality did not represent true instances of the AB, but instead were artifacts of task-set switching. However, in the Potter et al. experiments the presence or absence of task-set switching opportunities was confounded with the T2 task, as well as the alphanumeric class of T2 with respect to the distractors. In the present experiment, we examine the influence of T1 alphanumeric class, T2 alphanumeric class, and switching operations in a fully crossed design that unconfounds these factors. In contrast to the conclusions of Potter et al., the present results suggest that the T2 alphanumeric class can account for the pattern of ABs observed across conditions, without necessarily implicating a separate switch cost. The implications for theoretical models of the AB and the debate over the validity of cross-modal ABs are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15751472     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196842

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


  14 in total

1.  Separate attentional resources for vision and audition.

Authors:  David Alais; Concetta Morrone; David Burr
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  The attentional blink: a review of data and theory.

Authors:  Paul E Dux; René Marois
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  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

5.  Musical minds: attentional blink reveals modality-specific restrictions.

Authors:  Sander Martens; Stefan M Wierda; Mathijs Dun; Michal de Vries; Henderikus G O M Smid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Effect of flanking sounds on the auditory continuity illusion.

Authors:  Maori Kobayashi; Makio Kashino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  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

8.  Concurrent brain responses to separate auditory and visual targets.

Authors:  Paola Finoia; Daniel J Mitchell; Olaf Hauk; Christian Beste; Vittorio Pizzella; John Duncan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Load-induced inattentional deafness.

Authors:  Dana Raveh; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.199

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.