Literature DB >> 2349060

How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive? Apparently very little, but....

C W Eriksen1, J M Webb, L R Fournier.   

Abstract

The early versus late selection issue in attention models was examined by means of a new methodology. Through cues or precues, attention was directed to one location of a multistimulus visual display and, while attention was so engaged, the identity of a stimulus located at a different position in the display was changed. By varying the time after display onset before the stimulus was changed, we controlled the preview time that the original stimulus was represented on the retina. Then, using a marker cue, we directed the subject's attention to the location of the changed stimulus. The subject's response was a timed discrimination between two possible target letters. The data of main interest was the effect of preview time upon the subject's latency in identifying the new target that appeared in the changed location. We found that the preview time of the original stimulus, before RT was affected to the new target, depended upon whether the original stimulus was a neutral (noise) letter or whether it was the alternative target. When the original stimulus was a noise letter, RTs to the new target were just as fast as those obtained in the control condition in which the target was present throughout the preview interval and did not change its identity. Significant effects upon RT were obtained at preview times of 83 msec when the original stimulus was one of the targets that changed to the alternative target. Preview times also varied as a function of precuing. Preview times were correspondingly shortened when the first cue occurred 50 msec before display onset, thus providing an extra 50 msec for attention to be directed to the first display location. The results were interpreted in terms of two separate information-processing systems in the human: an automatic system and an attentional system. Even though a stimulus may have been automatically processed, when the attention system is directed to that stimulus, processing starts at the beginning again.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2349060     DOI: 10.3758/bf03208181

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


  16 in total

1.  Coactivation in the perception of redundant targets.

Authors:  L R Fournier; C W Eriksen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Shifting of attentional focus within and about a visual display.

Authors:  C W Eriksen; J M Webb
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1989-02

3.  Allocation of attention in the visual field.

Authors:  C W Eriksen; Y Y Yeh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Recognition memory and attentional selection: serial scanning is not enough.

Authors:  B A Eriksen; C W Eriksen; J E Hoffman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues.

Authors:  T D Murphy; C W Eriksen
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1987-12

6.  Visual processing capacity and attentional control.

Authors:  R M Shiffrin; G T Gardner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1972-04

7.  Evidence for an interruption theory of backward masking.

Authors:  T J Spencer; R Shuntich
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1970-08

8.  Postcategorical filtering in a bar-probe task.

Authors:  A H Van der Heijden
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1984-09

9.  Evidence against late selection: stimulus quality effects in previewed displays.

Authors:  H Pashler
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  A feature-integration theory of attention.

Authors:  A M Treisman; G Gelade
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  7 in total

1.  Attention and nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm.

Authors:  G Chastain; M Cheal; D Lyon
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-02

Review 2.  The point of no return: A fundamental limit on the ability to control thought and action.

Authors:  Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 2.143

Review 3.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: an evaluative review.

Authors:  T Van Zandt; J T Townsend
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-05

4.  Charles Eriksen. Past, present, and future.

Authors:  A Kramer; M Coles; B Eriksen; W Garner; J Hoffman; J Lappin
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-01

Review 5.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention.

Authors:  N Lavie; Y Tsal
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-08

6.  Selective attentional delays and attentional capture among simultaneous visual onset elements.

Authors:  L R Fournier
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-11

7.  Behavioral Oscillations in Visual Attention Modulated by Task Difficulty.

Authors:  Airui Chen; Aijun Wang; Tianqi Wang; Xiaoyu Tang; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-09-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.