Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing.

Abstract

Lavie and Tsal (1994) proposed that spare attentional capacity is allocated involuntarily to the processing of irrelevant stimuli, thereby enabling interference. Under this view, when task demands increase, spare capacity should decrease and distractor interference should decrease. In support, Lavie and Cox (1997) found that increasing perceptual load by increasing search set size decreased interference from an irrelevant distractor. In three experiments, we manipulated the cue set size (number of cued locations) independently of the display set size (number of letters presented). Increasing the display set size reduced distractor interference regardless of whether the additional letters were relevant to the task. In contrast, increasing the cue set size increased distractor interference. Both findings are inconsistent with the load explanation, but are consistent with a proposed two-stage dilution account.

White bear everywhere: Exploring the boundaries of the attentional white bear phenomenon

“…The lack of a Load × Congruency interaction, however, is inconsistent with perceptual-load theory, which predicts greater distractor interference under low-load than under high-load conditions (Lavie, 1995). This is not the first reported difficulty in replicating the expected perceptual-load results (see, e.g., Eltiti, Wallace, & Fox, 2005;Miller, 1991;Tsal & Benoni, 2010;Wilson, Muroi, & MacLeod, 2011). Most important for the present study is that the load manipulation produced a substantial increase in overall RTs, indicating that task difficulty was indeed increased in the high-load condition.…”

Perceptual load effects on processing distractor faces indicate face-specific capacity limits

“…crosstalk among visual features , 2012Wilson, Muroi, & MacLeod, 2011) instead of a draw on perceptual capacity as we propose here (as well as in the original concept of dilution, Kahneman & Chajczyck, 1983, and its later application to distractor faces, Jenkins, Lavie & Driver, 2003). Although there are now demonstrations that dilution effects are indeed explained by a draw on perceptual capacity as proposed in load theory (e.g., capacity spills over to the closer items to the target, or those grouped with it, in cases where it is not allocated to the distractor, see Lavie & Torralbo, 2010;Yeh & Lin, 2013), it seemed worthwhile to address it here (see Note 2).…”

Now hear this: Inattentional deafness depends on task relatedness

“…As a result, nontask visual stimuli can influence performance on the primary task in a low-load search, but will not in a high-load search situation. Recently, the load theory interpretation of these claims and the processes underlying such effects have been challenged (e.g., in dilution accounts; e.g., Tsal & Benoni, 2010;Wilson, Muroi, & MacLeod, 2011). However, the general pattern of results that load theory attempts to describe has been regularly replicated, and the theory itself is well-supported by both behavioral and neuroimaging studies involving visual stimuli (see Lavie, 2005Lavie, , 2010, for reviews).…”