A model of the formation of illusory conjunctions in the time domain.

Abstract

The authors present a model to account for the miscombination of features when stimuli are presented using the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) technique (illusory conjunctions in the time domain). It explains the distributions of responses through a mixture of trial outcomes. In some trials, attention is successfully focused on the target, whereas in others, the responses are based on partial information. Two experiments are presented that manipulated the mean processing time of the target-defining dimension and of the to-be-reported dimension, respectively. As predicted, the average origin of the responses is delayed when lengthening the target-defining dimension, whereas it is earlier when lengthening the to-be-reported dimension; in the first case the number of correct responses is dramatically reduced, whereas in the second it does not change. The results, a review of other research, and simulations carried out with a formal version of the model are all in close accordance with the predictions.

Task- and location-switching effects on visual attention

“…The greater disparity between target-defining and response features for letter targets could have led to processing delays, resulting in poorer performance for the letters. A similar account has been given for the occurrence of illusory conjunctions in the time domain (see Botella, Barriopedro, & Suero, 2001). Second, the distractors themselves were always letters, albeit black ones, but their inevitable processing to the level of recognition in most cases (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995) could have produced competitive interference in selecting and retaining the target letter's name (see also Isaak et al, 1999).…”

“…In the present experiments, these included a white color or a digit, and the response feature was the identity of the target character. The detection of a target-defining feature signals a spatiotemporal focus of attention onto the item containing the feature (Botella et al, 2001). For T1, this usually results in a sufficient concentration of resources to select the target item, identify it, and execute central memory processes involved in consolidating a representation for later report.…”

Negative attentional set in the attentional blink: control is not lost

“…According to Botella and his colleagues (Botella, Arend, & Suero, 2004;Botella, Barriopedro, & Suero, 2001), two sequential attempts may take place to make a response to a target. The second attempt, "sophisticated guessing," is only employed if the first one, "focal attention," fails to produce an integrated percept.…”

Parallel processing of stimulus features during RSVP: Evidence from the second response

“…In a similar vein, Botella et al (2001) proposed a model of the formation of illusory conjunctions in the time domain, in which the choice of response features belonging to the target is not random, but sometimes results from sophisticated guessing. If the target features have not been properly bound, such guessing is distributed over the response features that are available at the moment when the target is detected.…”

“…Thus, their proposal also contrasts with Donk's (1999) explanation of illusory conjunctions as methodological artifacts. 1 Specifically, Botella et al (2001) proposed a model in which responses are generated in two different ways in RSVP tasks. Assuming that the time needed to build an integrated percept can be thought of as a random variable, then, at the rates employed in RSVP experiments, the process of focal attention will succeed in integrating the target features on a specific proportion of the trials and will essentially generate hits.…”