Crossmodal Correspondence Between Tonal Hierarchy and Visual Brightness: Associating Syntactic Structure and Perceptual Dimensions Across Modalities.

Crossmodal correspondences (CMC) systematically associate perceptual dimensions in different sensory modalities (e.g., auditory pitch and visual brightness), and affect perception, cognition, and action. While previous work typically investigated associations between basic perceptual dimensions, here we present a new type of CMC, involving a high-level, quasi-syntactic schema: music tonality. Tonality governs most Western music and regulates stability and tension in melodic and harmonic progressions. Musicians have long associated tonal stability with non-auditory domains, yet such correspondences have hardly been investigated empirically. Here, we investigated CMC between tonal stability and visual brightness, in musicians and in non-musicians, using explicit and implicit measures. On the explicit test, participants heard a tonality-establishing context followed by a probe tone, and matched each probe to one of several circles, varying in brightness. On the implicit test, we applied the Implicit Association Test to auditory (tonally stable or unstable sequences) and visual (bright or dark circles) stimuli. The findings indicate that tonal stability is associated with visual brightness both explicitly and implicitly. They further suggest that this correspondence depends only partially on conceptual musical knowledge, as it also operates through fast, unintentional, and arguably automatic processes in musicians and non-musicians alike. By showing that abstract musical structure can establish concrete connotations to a non-auditory perceptual domain, our results open a hitherto unexplored avenue for research, associating syntactical structure with connotative meaning.

Attentional capture and engagement during the attentional blink: A "camera" metaphor of attention.

Identification of a target is impaired when it follows a previous target within 500 ms, suggesting that our attentional system suffers from severe temporal limitations. Although control-disruption theories posit that such impairment, known as the attentional blink (AB), reflects a difficulty in matching incoming information with the current attentional set, disrupted-engagement theories propose that it reflects a delay in later processes leading to transient enhancement of potential targets. Here, we used a variant of the contingent-capture rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) paradigm (Folk, Ester, & Troemel, 2009) to adjudicate these competing accounts. Our results show that a salient distractor that shares the target color captures attention to the same extent whether it appears within or outside the blink, thereby invalidating the notion that control over the attentional set is compromised during the blink. In addition, our results show that during the blink, not the attention-capturing object itself but the item immediately following it, is selected, indicating that the AB manifests as a delay between attentional capture and attentional engagement. We therefore conclude that attentional capture and attentional engagement can be dissociated as separate stages of attentional selection. (PsycINFO Database Record

Attentional engagement is not sufficient to prevent spatial capture.

What conditions, if any, can fully prevent attentional capture (i.e., involuntary allocation of spatial attention to an irrelevant object) has been a matter of debate. In a previous study, Folk, Ester, and Troemel (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16:127-132, 2009) suggested that attentional capture can be blocked entirely when attention is already engaged in a different object. This conclusion relied on the finding that in a search for a known-color target in a rapid serial visual presentation stream, a peripheral distractor with the target color did not further impair target identification performance when a distractor also with the target color that appeared in the stream had already captured attention. In the present study, we argue that this conclusion is unwarranted, because the effects of the central and peripheral distractors could not be disentangled. In order to isolate the effect of the peripheral distractor, we introduced a distractor-target letter compatibility manipulation. Our results showed that the peripheral distractor summoned attention, irrespective of whether attention had just been engaged. We conclude that neither spatially focused attention nor attentional engagement is sufficient to prevent attentional capture.

Temporal expectations modulate attentional capture.

Subjects' ability to override attentional capture by salient distractors during singleton search has been attributed to the adoption of an attentional set for the type of discontinuity characterizing the target (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992) or to fast disengagement of attention from the salient distractor's location (Theeuwes, Atchley, & Kramer, 2000). The present results support an alternative account by showing that temporal expectancies modulate attentional capture. In a color singleton search, an irrelevant onset preceding the target by a given time interval produced capture when the distractor-to-target interval varied unpredictably but failed to do so when this interval was predictable. Moreover, with unpredictable intervals and moderately salient stimuli, capture was overridden at the expected average interval. These findings invite caution when stimulus onset asynchrony manipulations are used to study the temporal deployment of attention, since they demonstrate that such manipulations introduce powerful temporal expectations.

Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode.

Attentional allocation in feature-search mode (W. F. Bacon & H. E. Egeth, 1994) is thought to be solely determined by top-down factors, with no role for stimulus-driven salience. The authors reassessed this conclusion using variants of the spatial cuing and rapid serial visual presentation paradigms developed by C. L. Folk and colleagues (C. L. Folk, R. W. Remington, & J. C. Johnston, 1992; C. L. Folk, A. B. Leber, & H. E. Egeth, 2002). They found that (a) a nonsingleton distractor that possesses the target feature produces attentional capture, (b) such capture is modulated by bottom-up salience, and (c) resistance to capture by irrelevant singletons is mediated by inhibitory processes. These results extend the role of top-down factors in search for a nonsingleton target while arguing against the notion that effects of bottom-up salience and top-down factors on attentional priority are strictly encapsulated within distinct search modes.