Literature DB >> 29124674

The cognitive loci of the display and task-relevant set size effects on distractor interference: Evidence from a dual-task paradigm.

Bo Youn Park1, Sujin Kim1, Yang Seok Cho2.   

Abstract

The congruency effect of a task-irrelevant distractor has been found to be modulated by task-relevant set size and display set size. The present study used a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm to examine the cognitive loci of the display set size effect (dilution effect) and the task-relevant set size effect (perceptual load effect) on distractor interference. A tone discrimination task (Task 1), in which a response was made to the pitch of the target tone, was followed by a letter discrimination task (Task 2) in which different types of visual target display were used. In Experiment 1, in which display set size was manipulated to examine the nature of the display set size effect on distractor interference in Task 2, the modulation of the congruency effect by display set size was observed at both short and long stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs), indicating that the display set size effect occurred after the target was selected for processing in the focused attention stage. In Experiment 2, in which task-relevant set size was manipulated to examine the nature of the task-relevant set size effect on distractor interference in Task 2, the effects of task-relevant set size increased with SOA, suggesting that the target selection efficiency in the preattentive stage was impaired with increasing task-relevant set size. These results suggest that display set size and task-relevant set size modulate distractor processing in different ways.

Keywords:  Attention: Selective; Dual task procedures (PRP); Dual-task performance

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29124674     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1442-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  32 in total

1.  Some theoretical considerations.

Authors:  J A DEUTSCH; D DEUTSCH
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1963-01       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention.

Authors:  Hanna Benoni; Yehoshua Tsal
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Look here but ignore what you see: effects of distractors at fixation.

Authors:  Diane M Beck; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location.

Authors:  Yang Seok Cho; Mei-Ching Lien; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Visual salience can co-exist with dilution during visual selection.

Authors:  Adam T Biggs; Bradley S Gibson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Object-based attention overrides perceptual load to modulate visual distraction.

Authors:  Joshua D Cosman; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Automaticity and word perception: evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects.

Authors:  T L Brown; L Roos-Gilbert; T H Carr
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects.

Authors:  Hanna Benoni; Alon Zivony; Yehoshua Tsal
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.143

9.  Perceptual load vs. dilution: the roles of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability.

Authors:  Zhe Chen; Kyle R Cave
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-06-07

10.  Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: the role of load.

Authors:  Sophie Forster; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2008-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.