Divided Attention to Ear and Eye1

Treisman, Anne; Davies, A.E.

doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734337.003.0005

Cited by 57 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neural responses in area V5/MT to a concurrently presented visual motion stimulus were measured using positron emission tomography (PET), and found to be similar in magnitude between auditory perceptual load conditions. This finding runs counter to supramodal accounts of perceptual load effects, but fits well with theoretical models arguing for modality specificity of attentional resources (Allport et al, 1972;Duncan et al, 1997;Mcleod, 1977;Treisman and Davies, 1973;Wickens, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Consistent with perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995), increasing visual load increased SSEP responses to the attended stream, and reduced SSEP responses to unattended peripheral checkerboard stimuli. In contrast, and consistent with modality-specific accounts of attention (Allport et al, 1972;Duncan et al, 1997;Mcleod, 1977;Treisman and Davies, 1973;Wickens, 1980), increasing visual load had no effect on SSEP responses to unattended auditory stimuli. In the present study, we set out to investigate the effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on the processing of competing visual stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Alternatively, if capacitylimitations underlying the perceptual load effect are entirely modality-specific (Allport et al, 1972;Duncan et al, 1997;Mcleod, 1977;Parks et al, 2011;Rees et al, 2001;Treisman and Davies, 1973;Wickens, 1980), then increasing auditory perceptual load should have no effect on SSEP responses to the unattended visual checkerboard. As with the visual load experiment, we also predicted that increasing the perceptual load associated with the attended (auditory) stimulus stream would enhance SSEP responses evoked by these stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanisms of attention are required to prioritise goal-relevant sensory events under conditions of stimulus competition. According to the perceptual load model of attention, the extent to which task-irrelevant inputs are processed is determined by the relative demands of discriminating the target: the more perceptually demanding the target task, the less unattended stimuli will be processed. Although much evidence supports the perceptual load model for competing stimuli within a single sensory modality, the effects of perceptual load in one modality on distractor processing in another is less clear. Here we used steady-state evoked potentials (SSEPs) to measure neural responses to irrelevant visual checkerboard stimuli while participants performed either a visual or auditory task that varied in perceptual load. Consistent with perceptual load theory, increasing visual task load suppressed SSEPs to the ignored visual checkerboards. In contrast, increasing auditory task load enhanced SSEPs to the ignored visual checkerboards. This enhanced neural response to irrelevant visual stimuli under auditory load suggests that exhausting capacity within one modality selectively compromises inhibitory processes required for filtering stimuli in another. KeywordsDistractor interference, frequency tagging, neural oscillations, perceptual load, selective attention Crossmodal perceptual load 3

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature remains divided on this issue, though it has been a focus of much research in recent years. There is considerable theoretical and empirical support for the view that attentional resources are modality-specific (Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds, 1972;Parks et al, 2011;Treisman & Davies, 1973;Wickens, 1980). with load in one mode having no effect on distractor inhibition in another.…”

Section: Cross-modal Perceptual-load Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention allows us to ignore what is taskirrelevant and focus on what is task-relevant. The cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie this process are key topics of investigation in cognitive psychology. One of the more prominent theories of attention is perceptual load theory, which suggests that the efficiency of selective attention is dependent on both perceptual and cognitive load. It is now more than 20 years since the proposal of load theory, and it is a good time to evaluate the evidence in support of this influential model. The present article supplements and extends previous reviews (Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004, 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-148. doi:10.1177/ 0963721410370295, 2010 by examining more recent research in what appears to be a rapidly expanding area. The article comprises five parts, examining (1) evidence for the effects of perceptual load on attention, (2) cognitive load, (3) individual differences under load, (4) alternative theories and criticisms, and (5) the future of load theory. We argue that the key next step for load theory will be the application of the model to real-world tasks. The potential benefits of applied attention research are numerous, and there is tentative evidence that applied research would provide strong support for the theory itself, as well as real-world benefits related to activities in which attention is crucial, such as driving and education.Keywords Selective attention . Perception . Perceptual load . Load theory . Distraction . Visual attention Selective attention is the ability to focus on that which is important to the task at hand while ignoring or suppressing task-irrelevant information. A key question that has fuelled much debate and research in psychology is how, and crucially when, this irrelevant information is filtered out. For example, while reading this article the reader may be surrounded by many potential distractors, such as the noise of a fly buzzing around the room. Given the top-down goal of reading this article, how much information is available to you about the fly? Can the processing of irrelevant stimuli be reduced or even prevented by internal or external factors? The inability to ignore distractors is a common experience in daily life, and though it may at times have minor consequences, such as extending the length of time it takes to read an article, in other situations lapses of attention may have far more serious consequences (e.g., in healthcare situations, or while operating heavy machinery). Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995(Lavie, , 2005(Lavie, , 2010Lavie & Tsal, 1994) suggests that the success or failure of selective attention is dependent on the processing demands of the current task. That is, the level of perceptual load as well as any cognitive load will determine the efficiency of distractor rejection. This theory has been hugely influential over the last 20 years,

show abstract

“…Excluded from Shockley and Turvey's experiment, however, were commonly identified sources of specific intertask interference (Bourke, 1997;Bourke, Duncan, & Nimmo-Smith, 1996), such as shared input modality (Treisman & Davies, 1973) or similar semantic domain (Hirst & Kalmar, 1987). A factor common to semantic retrieval and rhythmic coordination is implied by their results, but the conventional appeal to limited cognitive resources 8 fails to address the intricate pattern of mutual influences between the two activities.…”

Section: Analogous Effects In Coordination Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral dynamics of the affordance “graspable”

Lopresti-Goodman

Turvey

Frank

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a daily basis, one perceives whether an object affords grasping with one hand or with both hands. In experiments in which differently sized objects of a fixed type have been presented, the transition from using one manual mode to the other has depended on both the ratio of object size to hand span and the presentation sequence-that is, size increasing versus decreasing. The transitions and their observed hysteresis (i.e., a transition ratio larger for the increasing sequence) can be accommodated by the order parameter dynamics typifying self-organizing systems. Here, we show that hysteresis magnitude depends on (a) the interaction between the attractors (one hand vs. two hands) and (b) the strength of the two-hands attractor. Through modeling and experimental results, we extend the investigation of affordance perception within dynamical-systems theory.

show abstract

Divided Attention to Ear and Eye1

Cited by 57 publications

References 0 publications

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Behavioral dynamics of the affordance “graspable”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About