Literature DB >> 18324414

Temporal dissociation between category-based and item-based processes in rejecting distractors.

Atsunori Ariga1, Katsumi Watanabe.   

Abstract

Presenting a target-like distractor in an RSVP task deteriorates the detection of a trailing target, because the visual system has difficulties in rejecting the erroneously accepted distractor. We investigated whether the rejection process is influenced by observers' knowledge regarding possible distractors. Observers identified a letter (target) embedded in a stream of line patterns, rejecting a preceding distractor (digit). We informed the observers about either the category of distractors ("digit") or the identity of the distractor (e.g., "5"). The distractors with certain distractor-target lags increased identification errors, indicating that the distractor rejection process temporarily interfered with the target identification. When the observers knew the distractor identity, the rejection process started later than when they knew only the distractor category. These results suggest that the rejection process may operate at either the category or the individual-item level; however, the setting of the rejection level is not under the observers' control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18324414     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0143-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  15 in total

1.  Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink.

Authors:  Charles L Folk; Andrew B Leber; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-07

Review 2.  Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  The attentional blink: resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Authors:  Vincent Di Lollo; Jun-ichiro Kawahara; S M Shahab Ghorashi; James T Enns
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2004-04-29

4.  Selective attention and the perception of an attended nontarget object.

Authors:  Zhe Chen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Where and when to pay attention: the neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI.

Authors:  J T Coull; A C Nobre
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Visual search and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  J Duncan; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Integration of information in visual search.

Authors:  W Prinz
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 2.143

8.  Effect of stimulus degradation on category search.

Authors:  W Prinz; C Meinecke; M Hielscher
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1987-02

9.  Classification without identification in visual search.

Authors:  J Brand
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1971-05       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  Orienting of attention.

Authors:  M I Posner
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 2.143

View more
  1 in total

1.  Attentional capture by spatiotemporally task-irrelevant faces: supportive evidence for Sato and Kawahara (2015).

Authors:  Atsunori Ariga; Katsuhiko Arihara
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-04-28
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.