Difficulty suppressing visual distraction while dual tasking.

Human beings must often perform multiple tasks concurrently or in rapid succession. Laboratory research has revealed striking limitations in the ability to dual task by asking participants to identify two target objects that are inserted into a rapid stream of irrelevant items. Under a variety of conditions, identification of the second target (T2) is impaired for a short period of time following presentation of the first target (T1). Several theories have been developed to account for this "attentional blink" (AB), but none makes a specific prediction about how processing of T1 might impact an observer's ability to ignore a salient distractor that accompanies T2. Using event-related potentials (ERPs) to track target and distractor processing, we show that healthy young adults are capable of suppressing a salient visual-search distractor (D2) while dual tasking (as measured by the PD component, which has been associated with suppression) but struggle to do so shortly after the appearance of T1. In fact, the impairment was more severe for distractor processing than it was for target processing (as measured by the N2pc component). Whereas, the T2-elicited N2pc was merely delayed during the AB, the distractor PD was reduced in magnitude and was found to be statistically absent. We conclude that the inhibitory control processes that are typically engaged to prevent distraction are unavailable while an observer is busy processing a target that appeared earlier.

T1 difficulty does not modulate the magnitude of the attentional blink.

When the visual system is busy processing one stimulus, it has problems processing a subsequent stimulus if it arrives soon after the first. Laboratory studies of this second-stimulus impairment-known as attentional blink (AB)-have employed two targets (T1, T2) presented in rapid sequence, and have found identification accuracy to be nearly perfect for T1, but impaired for T2. It is commonly believed that the magnitude of the AB is related directly to the difficulty of T1: the greater the T1 difficulty, the larger the AB. A survey of the experimental literature disconfirms that belief showing it to have arisen from artificial constraints imposed by the 100% limit of the response scale. Removal of that constraint, either using reaction time (RT) instead of accuracy as the dependent measure, or in experiments in which the functions of T2 accuracy over lags do not converge to the limit of the response scale, reveals parallel functions for the easy-T1 and the hard-T1 conditions, consistent with the idea that T1 difficulty does not modulate AB magnitude. This finding is problematic for all, but the Boost and Bounce (B&B) and the Locus Coeruleus-Norepinephrine (LC-NE) theories in which T1 acts merely as a trigger for an eventual refractory period that leads to the failure to process T2, rendering T1 difficulty and its relationship to the AB an irrelevant consideration.

The attentional blink: why does Lag-1 sparing occur when the dependent measure is accuracy, but Lag-1 deficit when it is RT?

Perception of the second of two targets (T1, T2) displayed in rapid sequence is impaired if it comes shortly after the first (attentional blink, AB). In an exception, known as Lag-1 sparing, T2 is virtually unimpaired if it is presented directly after T1. Three experiments examined the seemingly inconsistent findings that Lag-1 sparing occurs in accuracy but Lag-1 deficit occurs in RT. Experiment 1 pointed to masking of T2 as the critical factor. When T2 was not masked, the results replicated the conventional findings. The novel finding was that Lag-1 sparing occurred in RT, provided that T2 was masked. An account was provided by a psychological refractory period-based model in which processing was said to occur in two broadly sequential stages: stimulus selection and response planning. Experiments 2 and 3 tested predictions from the PRP-based model regarding Lag-1 sparing/Lag-1 deficit. In Experiment 2, we increased T2 salience, notionally reducing the duration of the T2 selection stage, with corresponding reduction in Lag-1 sparing. In Experiment 3, we manipulated the compatibility between the T1 stimulus and the response to notionally decrease/increase the duration of the T1 response-planning stage with corresponding increment/decrement in Lag-1 sparing. The results of both experiments confirmed predictions from the PRP-based model.

Transition from feature-search to singleton-detection strategies in visual search: The role of number of target-defining options.

When searching for a uniquely colored target in an RSVP stream of homogeneously colored nontarget items, observers can use singleton-detection and/or feature-search modes. Using an attentional-capture paradigm, we varied systematically (a) the number of possible target colors from 1 to 4 and (b) the presence or absence of a colored ring surrounding the nontarget item displayed 200 ms before the target. When present, the ring was either the same color as 1 of the possible targets (color-match), or an irrelevant color (color-mismatch). Capture was measured as the impairment in target identification accuracy when the ring was present relative to when it was absent. Greater capture in the color-match than in the color-mismatch condition was regarded as evidence of feature-search mode. Capture in the color-mismatch condition was regarded as evidence for singleton-detection mode. We show that, as the number of target colors is increased, the relative prominence of feature-search mode decreases, and that of singleton-detection mode increases correspondingly. This novel finding shows that, when both feature-search and singleton-detection modes are possible, at least some degree of feature-search mode is used until the number of possible target-defining colors reaches about 4. This suggests that the weight assigned to singleton-detection mode increases, and that assigned to feature-search mode decreases correspondingly, as the difficulty of maintaining the target-defining features in mind is increased. (PsycINFO Database Record

Perception of temporal order during the attentional blink: Using stimulus salience to modulate prior entry.

When multiple targets are presented in rapid sequence, observers frequently confuse the order in which they were presented. The probability of order reversals is known to vary throughout the period of the attentional blink (AB), which refers to impairment in the perception of the second of two targets when it is presented within approximately 500 ms from the first. Our objective was to examine the principle of prior entry (in which perception of temporal order is said to be affected by the relative latency at which each target is processed) as a determinant of the perception of temporal order throughout the AB. In two experiments, three letter targets (T1, T2, T3) were inserted in a stream of digit distractors, with T3 always presented directly after T2. The T1-T2 lag was varied to assess the perception of T2-T3 temporal order throughout the period of the AB. Processing latency was manipulated by means of salience. In Experiment 1, salience of T2 and T3 was manipulated exogenously by coloring the salient target red with all other stimuli being green. In Experiment 2, salience was modulated endogenously by manipulating which of the two targets matched the contents of working memory. Consistent with the principle of prior entry, perception of temporal order in both experiments was enhanced throughout the period of the AB when T2 was salient, and impaired when T3 was salient. Simulations based on the Episodic Simultaneous Type, Serial Token (eSTST) model that incorporates prior-entry, matched the empirical results.

Visual search is postponed during the period of the AB: An event-related potential study.

In the phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB), perception of the second of two rapidly sequential targets (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). Studies in which T2 consisted of a pop-out search array provided evidence suggesting that visual search is postponed during the AB. In the present work, we used behavioral and electrophysiological measures to test this postponement hypothesis. The behavioral measure was reaction time (RT) to T2; the electrophysiological measure was the onset latency of an ERP index of attentional selection, known as the N2pc. Consistent with the postponement hypothesis, both measures were delayed during the AB. The delay in N2pc was substantially shorter than that in RT, pointing to multiple sources of delay in the chain of processing events, as distinct from the single source postulated in current theories of the AB. Finally, the finding that the N2pc was delayed during the AB strongly suggests that attention is involved in the processing of pop-out search arrays.

Is pop-out visual search attentive or preattentive? Yes!

Is the efficiency of "pop-out" visual search impaired when attention is preempted by another task? This question has been raised in earlier experiments but has not received a satisfactory answer. To constrain the availability of attention, those experiments employed an attentional blink (AB) paradigm in which report of the second of 2 targets (T2) is impaired when it is presented shortly after the first (T1). In those experiments, T2 was a pop-out search display that remained on view until response. The main finding was that search efficiency, as indexed by the slope of the search function, was not impaired during the period of the AB. With such long displays, however, the search could be postponed until T1 had been processed, thus allowing the task to be performed with full attention. That pitfall was avoided in the present Experiment 1 by presenting the search array either until response (thus allowing a postponement strategy) or very briefly (making that strategy ineffectual). Level of performance was impaired during the period of the AB, but search efficiency was unimpaired even when the display was brief. Experiment 2 showed that visual search is indeed postponed during the period of the AB, when the array remains on view until response. These findings reveal the action of at least 2 separable mechanisms, indexed by level and efficiency of pop-out search, which are affected in different ways by the availability of attention. The Guided Search 4.0 model can account for the results in both level and efficiency.

Escape from temporal-integration masking: the roles of visible persistence and input filtering.

A brief target embedded in­and coterminating with­a noise mask is identified easily when the duration of the mask is long but not when it is short (Di Lollo, 1980; inverse-duration effect). Identification has been said to be mediated by the visible persistence of the target, which outlasted that of the mask. We tested an alternative account based on input filtering triggered by the onset and offset of the target, relative to those of the mask, without recourse to visible persistence. The results of Experiment 1 could not be explained wholly in terms of visible persistence but were entirely consistent with input filtering. Identification suffered in Experiment 2 when transient responses were attenuated by "ramping." In Experiment 3, accuracy improved gradually as a function of leading-mask duration. All results were consistent with a modified version of von Holst's (1954) hypothesis that a new stimulus (e.g., the present mask) establishes an input filter within the system. Any sudden onsets or offsets then lead to the perception of a new object only when they do not match the input filter, thus becoming segregated from the temporally leading stimulus.

The root cause of the attentional blink: first-target processing or disruption of input control?

Identification of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). T1-based theories ascribe this attentional blink (AB) to a T1-initiated period of inattention. Distractor-based theories ascribe it to a disruption of input control caused by post-T1 distractors. The finding that an AB occurs without intertarget distractors (Nieuwenstein, Potter, & Theeuwes, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35:159-169, 2009) seemingly disconfirms distractor-based theories. The present experiments addressed different ways in which distractor-based theories might account for that finding. Intertarget events were varied in four experiments. Experiment 1 replicated Nieuwenstein, Potter, and Theeuwes's findings. The next two experiments tested two ways (lack of visual stimulation, violation of expectation) in which the blank intertarget interval might cause an AB. Experiment 4 explored whether backward-masking of T1 can account entirely for the larger AB obtained with intervening distractors or whether distractors also disrupt input control. The results disconfirm predictions from distractor-based theories and support the claim of T1-based theories that T1 processing alone is sufficient for the AB. Simulations based on the eSTST (Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35:787-807, 2009) and the B&B models (Olivers & Meeter, Psychological Research, 115, 836-863 2008) were compared. Predictions were more accurate from the T1-based theory (eSTST) than from the distractor-based theory (B&B).

LCDs are better: psychophysical and photometric estimates of the temporal characteristics of CRT and LCD monitors.

Many cognitive and perceptual phenomena, such as iconic memory and temporal integration, require brief displays. A critical requirement is that the image not remain visible after its offset. It is commonly believed that liquid crystal displays (LCD) are unsuitable because of their poor temporal response characteristics relative to cathode-ray-tube (CRT) screens. Remarkably, no psychophysical estimates of visible persistence are available to verify this belief. A series of experiments in which white stimuli on a black background produced discernible persistence on CRT but not on LCD screens, during both dark- and light-adapted viewing, falsified this belief. Similar estimates using black stimuli on a white background produced no visible persistence on either screen. That said, photometric measurements are available that seem to confirm the poor temporal characteristics of LCD screens, but they were obtained before recent advances in LCD technology. Using current LCD screens, we obtained photometric estimates of rise time far shorter (1-6 ms) than earlier estimates (20-150 ms), and approaching those of CRTs (<1 ms). We conclude that LCDs are preferable to CRTs when visible persistence is a concern, except when black-on-white displays are used.

Perception of temporal order is impaired during the time course of the attentional blink.

Identification accuracy for the second of two target (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). Does this attentional blink (AB) also impair the perception of the order of presentation? In four experiments, three letter targets (T1, T2, T3) were inserted in a stream of digit distractors displayed in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), with T3 always presented directly after T2. The T1-T2 lag was varied to assess the perception of T2-T3 temporal order throughout the period of the AB. Factorial manipulation of the presence or absence of distractors before T1 and between T1 and T2 had similar effects on accuracy and on perception of temporal order. It is important to note that perception of temporal order suffered even when accuracy was unimpaired. This pattern of results is consistent with prior-entry theories of the perception of temporal order but not with episodic-integration theories. Simulations based on the Episodic Simultaneous Type, Serial Token (eSTST) model (Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2009) provided excellent fits to the data except for the condition in which no distractors were presented in the RSVP stream.

Unique sudden onsets capture attention even when observers are in feature-search mode.

Two sources of attentional capture have been proposed: stimulus-driven (exogenous) and goal-oriented (endogenous). A resolution between these modes of capture has not been straightforward. Even such a clearly exogenous event as the sudden onset of a stimulus can be said to capture attention endogenously if observers operate in singleton-detection mode rather than feature-search mode. In four experiments we show that a unique sudden onset captures attention even when observers are in feature-search mode. The displays were rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams of differently coloured letters with the target letter defined by a specific colour. Distractors were four #s, one of the target colour, surrounding one of the non-target letters. Capture was substantially reduced when the onset of the distractor array was not unique because it was preceded by other sets of four grey # arrays in the RSVP stream. This provides unambiguous evidence that attention can be captured both exogenously and endogenously within a single task.

The attentional blink is not affected by backward masking of T2, T2-mask SOA, or level of T2 impoverishment.

Identification of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented shortly after the first (T1). This attentional blink (AB) is thought to arise from a delay in T2 processing during which T2 is vulnerable to masking. Conventional studies have measured T2 accuracy which is constrained by the 100% ceiling. We avoided this problem by using a dynamic threshold-tracking procedure that is inherently free from ceiling constraints. In two experiments we examined how AB magnitude is affected by three masking-related factors: (a) presence/absence of T2 mask, (b) T2-mask stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and (c) level of T2 impoverishment (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]). In Experiment 1, overall accuracy decreased with T2-mask SOA. The magnitude of the AB, however, was invariant with SOA and with mask presence/absence. Experiment 2 further showed that the AB was invariant with T2 SNR. The relationship among mask presence/absence, SOA, and T2 SNR and the AB is encompassed in a qualitative model.

The role of observer strategy in the single-target AB paradigm.

Identification of the second of two targets (T1, T2) inserted in a stream of distractors is impaired when presented 200-500 ms after the first (attentional blink, AB). An AB-like effect has been reported by Nieuwenstein, Potter, and Theeuwes, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 159-169, (2009, Experiment 2), with a distractor stream that contained only one target and a gap just before the target. Nieuwenstein et al. hypothesized that the gap enhanced the salience of the last distractor, causing it to be processed much like T1 in conventional AB studies. This hypothesis can also account for Lag-1 sparing (enhanced target performance when presented directly after the last distractor, without an intervening gap). We propose an alternative account of the Lag-1 sparing in the single-target paradigm based on observer strategy, and test it by presenting the single-target and dual-target conditions to separate groups (Experiment 2) instead of mixed across trials (Experiment 1 and Nieuwenstein et al.'s study). The single-target condition exhibited Lag-1 sparing when it was mixed with the dual-target condition, but Lag-1 deficit when it was done in isolation. This outcome is consistent with an observer-strategy account but not with an enhanced salience account of the Lag-1 sparing effect in the single-target condition.