According to bottleneck models of the attentional blink (AB), first-target (T1) processing difficulty should be related to AB magnitude. Tests of this prediction that have varied T1 difficulty in the context of a standard AB paradigm, however, have yielded mixed results. The present work examines two factors that may mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB: observer expectancy and backward masking of T1. In two experiments, omission of the backward mask consistently yielded the predicted relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB. In contrast, observer expectancy influenced target identification accuracy but did not mediate the relationship between T1 difficulty and the AB.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkyürekE. G.HommelB. (2005). Target integration and the attentional blink.Acta Psychologica119, 305–314.
2.
BreitmeyerB. G. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approachNew York: Oxford University Press.
3.
ChristmannC.LeutholdH. (2004). The attentional blink is susceptible to concurrent perceptual processing demands.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology57A, 357–377.
4.
ChunM. M.PotterM. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 109–127.
5.
Di LolloV.EnnsJ. T.RensinkA. R. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General129, 481–507.
6.
Di LolloV.KawaharaJ.GhorashiS. M. S.EnnsT. J. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?.Psychological Research69, 191–200.
7.
FolkC. L.LeberA. B.EgethH. E. (2002). Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink.Perception & Psychophysics64, 741–753.
8.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W. (1998). Selecivity in distraction by irrelevant singletons: Evidence for two forms of contingent capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 847–858.
9.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W.JohnstonJ. C. (1992). Involuntary cover orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 682–695.
10.
GhorashiS. M. S.ZuvicS. M.VisserT. A. W.Di LolloV. (2003). Focal distraction: Spatial shifts of attentional focus are not required for contingent capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 78–91.
11.
GiesbrechtB. L.Di LolloV. (1998). Beyond the attentional blink: Visual masking by object substitution.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 1454–1466.
12.
JolicœurP. (1998). Modulation of the attentional blink by on-line response selection: Evidence from speeded and unspeeded Task-sub-1 decisions.Memory and Cognition26, 1014–1032.
13.
JolicœurP. (1999a). Concurrent response-selection demands modulate the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 1097–1113.
14.
JolicœurP. (1999b). Dual-task interference and visual encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 596–616.
15.
McLaughlinE. N.ShoreD. I.KleinR. M. (2001). The attentional blink is immune to masking-induced data limits.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54A, 169–196.
16.
Neurobehavioral Systems (2002). Presentation Version 0.81 [Computer software]. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from www.neuro-bs.com.
17.
NormanD. A.BobrowD. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes.Cognitive Psychology7, 44–64.
18.
RaymondJ. E.ShapiroK. L.ArnellK. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18, 849–860.
19.
RaymondJ. EShapiroK. LArnellK. M. (1995). Similarity determines the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 653–662.
20.
SeiffertA. E.Di LolloV. (1997). Low-level masking in the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 1061–1073.
21.
ShapiroK. L.ArnellK. A.RaymondJ. E. (1997a). The attentional blink: A view on attention and a glimpse on consciousness.Trends in Cognitive Science1, 291–296.
22.
ShapiroK. L.CaldwellJ.SorensenR. E. (1997b). Personal names and the attentional blink: A visual “cocktail party” effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 504–514.
23.
ShapiroK. L.RaymondJ. E. (1994). Temporal allocation of visual attention: Inhibition or interference?.Inhibitory mechanisms in attention, memory and language. DagenbachD.CarrT. H.San Diego, CA: Academic Press151–187.
24.
ShapiroK. LRaymondJ. E.ArnellK. M. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 357–371.
25.
ShoreD. I.McLaughlinE. N.KleinR. M. (2001). Modulation of the attentional blink by differential resource allocation.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology55, 318–324.
26.
VisserT. A. W.Masking Task-1 difficulty: Processing time and the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance458–469(in press).
27.
VisserT. A. W.BischofW. F.Di LolloV. (1999). Attentional switching in spatial and non-spatial domains: Evidence from the attentional blink.Psychological Bulletin125, 458–469.
28.
VisserT. A.W.BischofW. F.Di LolloV. (2004). Rapid serial visual distraction: Task irrelevant items can produce an attentional blink.Perception & Psychophysics66, 1418–1432.
29.
VogelE. K.LuckS. JShapiroK. L. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 1656–1674.
30.
WardR.DuncanJ.ShapiroK. (1997). Effects of similarity, difficulty, and nontarget presentation on the time course of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics59, 593–600.
