An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search.

We used a probe dot procedure to examine the time course of attention in preview search (Watson and Humphreys, 1997). Participants searched for an outline red vertical bar among other new red horizontal bars and old green vertical bars, superimposed on a blue background grid. Following the reaction time response for search, the participants had to decide whether a probe dot had briefly been presented. Previews appeared for 1,000 msec and were immediately followed by search displays. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated a standard preview benefit relative to a conjunction search baseline. In Experiment 2, search was combined with the probe task. Probes were more difficult to detect when they were presented 1,200 msec, relative to 800 msec, after the preview, but at both intervals detection of probes at the locations of old distractors was harder than detection on new distractors or at neutral locations. Experiment 3A demonstrated that there was no difference in the detection of probes at old, neutral, and new locations when probe detection was the primary task and there was also no difference when all of the shapes appeared simultaneously in conjunction search (Experiment 3B). In a final experiment (Experiment 4), we demonstrated that detection on old items was facilitated (relative to neutral locations and probes at the locations of new distractors) when the probes appeared 200 msec after previews, whereas there was worse detection on old items when the probes followed 800 msec after previews. We discuss the results in terms of visual marking and attention capture processes in visual search

Prospectively reinstated memory drives conscious access of matching visual input

Item does not contain fulltextMaintaining information in visual working memory (VWM) biases attentional selection of concurrent visual input, by favoring VWM-matching over VWM-mismatching visual input. Recently, it was shown that this bias disappears when the same item is memorized on consecutive occasions (as memoranda presumably transit from VWM to long-term memory), but reemerges when observers anticipate to memorize a novel item on a subsequent trial. Here, we aimed to conceptually replicate and extend this intriguing finding, by investigating whether prospectively reinstated memory drives conscious access of memory-matching visual input. We measured the time it took for participants to detect interocularly suppressed target stimuli, which were either from the same color category as a concurrently memorized color or not. Our results showed that the advantage of memory-matching targets in overcoming suppression progresses non-monotonically across consecutive memorizations of the same color ('repetitions'): the advantage for memory-matching visual input initially declined to asymptote, before being fully revived on the last repetition. This revival was not observed in a control experiment in which targets were not interocularly suppressed. The results suggest that, as observers anticipate to memorize a novel item imminently, VWM usage is prospectively reinstated, causing memory-matching visual input to gain accelerated access to consciousness again.12 p

The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking.

A series of experiments are reviewed providing evidence for the idea that when new visual objects are prioritized, old objects are inhibited by a top-down controlled suppression mechanism - A process referred to as visual marking. Evidence for the top-down aspect of visual marking is presented, by showing that new object prioritization, as measured in the preview paradigm, depends on task settings and available attentional resources. Evidence for the inhibitory aspect is presented, by showing that selection of new items is impaired when these items share features with the old items. Such negative carryover effects occur within as well as between trials. Alternative accounts and the evidence for them is discussed. It is concluded that the various accounts are not mutually exclusive and that the data is best explained by a combination of mechanisms. © 2006 Psychology Press Ltd

Distracting the Mind Improves Performance: An ERP Study

When a second target (T2) is presented in close succession of a first target (T1), people often fail to identify T2, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB). However, the AB can be reduced substantially when participants are distracted during the task, for instance by a concurrent task, without a cost for T1 performance. The goal of the current study was to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of this paradoxical effect.Participants successively performed three tasks, while EEG was recorded. The first task (standard AB) consisted of identifying two target letters in a sequential stream of distractor digits. The second task (grey dots task) was similar to the first task with the addition of an irrelevant grey dot moving in the periphery, concurrent with the central stimulus stream. The third task (red dot task) was similar to the second task, except that detection of an occasional brief color change in the moving grey dot was required. AB magnitude in the latter task was significantly smaller, whereas behavioral performance in the standard and grey dots tasks did not differ. Using mixed effects models, electrophysiological activity was compared during trials in the grey dots and red dot tasks that differed in task instruction but not in perceptual input. In the red dot task, both target-related parietal brain activity associated with working memory updating (P3) as well as distractor-related occipital activity was significantly reduced.The results support the idea that the AB might (at least partly) arise from an overinvestment of attentional resources or an overexertion of attentional control, which is reduced when a distracting secondary task is carried out. The present findings bring us a step closer in understanding why and how an AB occurs, and how these temporal restrictions in selective attention can be overcome

Quick Minds Slowed Down: Effects of Rotation and Stimulus Category on the Attentional Blink

BACKGROUND: Most people show a remarkable deficit to report the second of two targets when presented in close temporal succession, reflecting an attentional restriction known as the 'attentional blink' (AB). However, there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the effect, with some people showing no such attentional restrictions. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we present behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggesting that these 'non-blinkers' can use alphanumeric category information to select targets at an early processing stage. When such information was unavailable and target selection could only be based on information that is processed relatively late (rotation), even non-blinkers show a substantial AB. Electrophysiologically, in non-blinkers this resulted in enhanced distractor-related prefrontal brain activity, as well as delayed target-related occipito-parietal activity (P3). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: These findings shed new light on possible strategic mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in AB magnitude and provide intriguing clues as to how temporal restrictions as reflected in the AB can be overcome

Distractor Inhibition Predicts Individual Differences in the Attentional Blink

Background: The attentional blink (AB) refers to humans' impaired ability to detect the second of two targets (T2) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors if it appears within 200-600 ms of the first target (T1). Here we examined whether humans' ability to inhibit distractors in the RSVP stream is a key determinant of individual differences in T1 performance and AB magnitude