A re-examination of the impact of object processing on shifts of spatial attention

Abstract

When two targets are presented in rapid succession at the same spatial location, processing of the first is highly efficient, while processing of the second is often profoundly impaired at brief inter-target intervals (attentional blink; AB). While the AB has been shown to impact many processes, it is still unclear whether this includes the ability to shift spatial attention. The present study examined this question using a more sensitive dependent measure than past studies; namely, response times. It also evaluated whether masking of the cue stimulus modulated the effect of the AB on spatial shifts. The results showed significant cueing effects on T2 response times that were strongly modulated by the AB. This supports suggested links between mechanisms underlying object processing and spatial shifts of attention.

On the automaticity of contingent capture: disruption caused by the attentional blink

“…In the present study, we showed that contingent capture could be largely removed during the "blink" time of the AB. This finding is consistent with earlier studies that have examined onset capture using the AB paradigm (Du & Abrams, 2009;Visser, 2011). In those studies, when a distractor suddenly onset 100 ms after T1, onset capture was entirely eliminated.…”

“…Experiment 1 showed that the AB attenuated contingent capture. However, contingent capture seemed to persist even at the shortest lag during the AB, which is in contrast to a complete suppression of onset capture within the first 200 ms of the AB (Du & Abrams, 2009;Visser, 2011). Three possible accounts could explain why the AB would not have completely eliminated contingent capture in Experiment 1.…”

“…Previous studies have reported a complete suppression of onset capture within the first 200 ms of the AB (Du & Abrams, 2009;Visser, 2011). Contingent capture would also be expected to be suppressed by the AB if it shares similar mechanisms.…”

“…First, T1 was a visual instead of an auditory target, as in the Brisson et al (2009) study, which might increase modality-specific interference to contingent capture. Second, color-matched distractors could appear 94 ms after T1, an interval shorter than that used by Brisson et al, and one that is more likely to produce strong suppression of attentional capture (Visser, 2011). These changes provided a challenging situation in which to test the resistance of contingent capture to the AB.…”

“…If onset capture is truly automatic, it presumably would not be affected by the AB. However, two recent studies have shown that exogenous cuing by uninformative onsets is completely suppressed by the AB (Du & Abrams, 2009;Visser, 2011). Since both abrupt onsets and feature singletons fail to capture attention when attention is intensively engaged in object processing, stimulus-driven capture is not automatic.…”