Sensory information must be processed selectively in order to represent the world and guide behavior. How does such selection occur? Here we consider two alternative classes of selection mechanisms: In blocking, unattended stimuli are blocked entirely from access to downstream processes, and in attenuation, unattended stimuli are reduced in strength but if strong enough can still access downstream processes. Existing evidence as to whether blocking or attenuation is a more accurate model of human performance is mixed. Capitalizing on a general distinction between blocking and attenuation—blocking cannot be overcome by strong stimuli, whereas attenuation can—we measured how attention interacted with the strength of stimuli in two spatial selection paradigms, spatial filtering and spatial monitoring. The evidence was consistent with blocking for the filtering paradigm and with attenuation for the monitoring paradigm. This approach provides a general measure of the fate of unattended stimuli.
BahcallD. O.KowlerE. (1999). Attention interference at small spatial separations. Vision Research, 39, 71–86.
2.
BonnelA. M.SteinJ. F.BertucciP. (1992). Does attention modulate the perception of luminance changes?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 601–626.
3.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
4.
BroadbentD. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BuracasG. T.BoyntonG. M. (2007). The effect of spatial attention on contrast response functions in human visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 93–97.
6.
CherryE. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.
7.
EcksteinM. P.PetersonM. F.PhamB. T.DrollJ. A. (2009). Statistical decision theory to relate neurons to behavior in the study of covert visual attention. Vision Research, 49, 1097–1128.
8.
EgethH. E.VirziR. A.GarbartH. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 32–39.
9.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
10.
GobellJ. L.TsengC.SperlingG. (2004). The spatial distribution of attention. Vision Research, 44, 1273–1296.
11.
HeinE.MooreC. M. (2009). Explicit eye movements failed to facilitate the precision of attentional localization. Experimental Brain Research, 197, 387–393.
12.
HeinE.MooreC. M. (2010). Investigating temporal properties of covert shifts of visual attention using the attentional walk task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 41–46.
13.
HerrmannK.Montaser-KouhsariL.CarrascoM.HeegerD. J. (2010). When size matters: Attention affects performance by contrast or response gain. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1554–1559.
14.
HuangL.DobkinsK. R. (2005). Attentional effects on contrast discrimination in humans: Evidence for both contrast gain and response gain. Vision Research, 45, 1201–1212.
15.
IntriligatorJ.CavanaghP. (2001). The spatial resolution of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 171–216.
16.
LachterJ.ForsterK. I.RuthruffE. (2004). Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no evidence of identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880–913.
17.
LiX.LuZ. L.TjanB. S.DosherB. A.ChuW. (2008). Blood oxygenation level-dependent contrast response functions identify mechanisms of covert attention in early visual areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 6202–6207.
18.
MackA.RockI. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
McAdamsC. J.MaunsellJ. H. R. (1999). Effects of attention on orientation-tuning functions of single neurons in macaque cortical area V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 431–441.
20.
MillerJ. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 419–434.
21.
MooreC. M.HeinE.GrosjeanM.RinkenaurG. (2009). Limited influence of perceptual organization on the precision of attentional localization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 971–983.
22.
MooreC. M.Lanagan-LeitzelL. K.ChenP.HaltermanR.FineE. F. (2007). Nonspatial attributes of stimuli can influence spatial limitations of attentional control. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 363–371.
23.
MooreC. M.Lanagan-LeitzelL. K.FineE. M. (2008). Distinguishing between the precision of attentional localization and attentional resolution. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 573–582.
24.
PalmerJ.HukA. C.ShadlenM. N. (2005). The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. Journal of Vision, 5(5), Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/5/5/1
25.
PalmerJ.MooreC. M. (2009). Using a filtering task to measure the spatial extent of selective attention. Vision Research, 49, 1045–1064.
26.
PelliD. G. (1985). Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 2, 1508–1532.
27.
PelliD. G. (1987). On the relation between summation and facilitation. Vision Research, 27, 119–123.
28.
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
29.
PestilliF.LingS.CarrascoM. (2009). A population-coding model of attention’s influence on contrast response: Estimating neural effects from psychophysical data. Vision Research, 49, 1144–1153.
30.
PosnerM. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
31.
ReynoldsJ. H.HeegerD. J. (2009). The normalization model of attention. Neuron, 61, 168–185.
SagiD.JuleszB. (1986). Enhanced detection in the aperture of focal attention during simple discrimination tasks. Nature, 321, 693–695.
34.
ShafferW. O.LaBergeD. (1979). Automatic semantic processing of unattended words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 412–426.
35.
ShawM. L. (1980). Identifying attentional and decision-making components in information processing. In NickersonR. S. (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 106–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
ShimozakiS. S.EcksteinM. P.AbbeyC. K. (2003). Comparison of two weighted integration models for the cueing task: Linear and likelihood. Journal of Vision, 3(3), Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/3/3/3
37.
SperlingG. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74, 1–29.
38.
SperlingG.MelchnerM. J. (1978). The attention operating characteristic: Examples from visual search. Science, 202, 315–318.
39.
TreismanA. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242–248.
40.
YantisS.JohnstonJ. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 135–149.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
