Ignorance is bliss: The role of observer expectation in dynamic spatial tuning of the attentional focus

Jefferies, Lisa N.; Ghorashi, Shahab; Kawahara, Jun‐ichiro; Lollo, Vincent Di

doi:10.3758/bf03193953

Cited by 36 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the present study confirms and extends earlier work by Jefferies et al (2007), who found a complete AB, including considerable lag 1 sparing, across multiple locations when participants had no preknowledge on the location of T1. Jefferies et al argued that the uncertainty of T1's location led observers to adopt a wider attentional focus, so that T2 could often pass through (at lag 1) regardless of its location.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…We have no clear explanation for the lack of recovery here, other than that the lags were insufficiently long to allow for recovery or observers occasionally give up looking at the steam altogether when T2 has not arrived within a certain time. We point out that a lack of recovery is not unique (e.g., Jefferies et al, 2007;Nieuwenhuis, Gilzenrat, Holmes, & Cohen, 2005;Shih, 2000).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…If lag 1 sparing occurs, the subsequent deficit cannot be due to spatial switch costs, since a switch cost would not spare lag 1. A recent study by Jefferies et al (2007; see also Shih, 2000) meets this criterion. In a double-stream experiment with two groups of participants, one group was told in which stream T1 was going Stimulus, Procedure, and Design.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

Lunau

Olivers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

Lunau

Olivers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Duncan et al (1994) presented two masked targets at different spatiotemporal offsets and observed what they termed an attentional dwell time, which resembles in many ways an attentional blink, except that the targets were presented approximately 2-4 degrees apart and without RSVP. Many other experiments have demonstrated variations of the attentional blink across different locations for targets presented either in isolation, or in ongoing RSVP streams with spatial separations ranging from .5 to 9 degrees of visual angle (Bay & Wyble, 2014;Du, Abrams, & Zhang, 2011;Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009;Jefferies, Enns, & Di Lollo, 2014;Kawahara & Yamada, 2006;Jefferies, Ghorashi, Kawahara, & Di Lollo, 2007;Kristjánsson & Nakayama, 2002;Shih, 2000;Visser, Bischof, & Di Lollo, 1999).…”

Section: The Attentional Blink and The Attentional Dwell Timementioning

confidence: 97%

Mapping the spatiotemporal dynamics of interference between two visual targets

Wyble

Swan

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major thread of visual cognition has been to explore the characteristics of the attention system by presenting two targets and observing how well they can both be reported as a function of their temporal and spatial separation. This method has illuminated effects such as the attentional blink, the attentional dwell time, competitive interference, sparing temporal order errors, and localized attentional interference. However, these different effects are typically explored separately, using quite distinct experimental paradigms. In an effort to consolidate our understanding of these various effects into a more comprehensive theory of attention, we present a new method for measuring spatial gradients of interference at different temporal separations between two targets without creating specific expectations about target location. The observed data support theories that there are multiple sources of interference within the visual system. A theoretical model is proposed that illustrates how three distinct forms of interference could arise through the processes of identifying, attending, and encoding visual targets.

show abstract

“…It has been shown that Lag-1 sparing also occurs to targets in different spatial locations, but only if T2 falls within the focus of attention (Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009;Jefferies, Ghorashi, Kawahara, & Di Lollo, 2007;Shih, 2000). The incidence of Lag-1 sparing can, therefore, be used to determine whether or not a particular spatial location falls within the focus of attention and thus to assess the distribution of attention across space (Jefferies & Di Lollo, 2009;Jefferies, Ghorashi, Kawahara, & Di Lollo, 2007; Kawahara & Yamada, 2007;Lunau & Olivers, 2010).Our implementation of the AB and Lag-1 sparing was based on the methodology used by Kawahara and Yamada (2007), who employed two concurrent streams of digit distractors, one on either side of fixation, separated by a spatial gap. A first pair of letter-targets (T1-pair) appeared simultaneously, one in each stream (in-stream condition).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The flexible focus: Whether spatial attention is unitary or divided depends on observer goals.

Jefferies¹,

Enns²,

Lollo³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distribution of visual attention has been the topic of much investigation, and various theories have posited that attention is allocated either as a single unitary focus or as multiple independent foci. In the present experiment, we demonstrate that attention can be flexibly deployed as either a unitary or a divided focus in the same experimental task, depending on the observer's goals. To assess the distribution of attention, we employed a dual-stream Attentional Blink (AB) paradigm and two target pairs. One component of the AB, Lag-1 sparing, occurs only if the second target pair appears within the focus of attention. By varying whether the first-target-pair could be expected in a predictable location (always in-stream) or not (unpredictably in-stream or between-streams), observers were encouraged to deploy a divided or a unitary focus, respectively. When the second-target-pair appeared between the streams, Lag-1 sparing occurred for the Unpredictable group (consistent with a unitary focus) but not for the Predictable group (consistent with a divided focus). Thus, diametrically different outcomes occurred for physically identical displays, depending on the expectations of the observer about where spatial attention would be required. The Flexible Focus 3Stimuli presented at attended locations are processed faster and more accurately than those presented at unattended locations (LaBerge, 1995). Theories to account for this benefit typically appeal to either (a) a single unitary focus of attention that expands and contracts so as to optimize performance on the task at hand (e.g., Barriopedro & Botella, 1998;Castiello & Umiltà, 1990 Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Eriksen & Yeh, 1985;Heinze et al., 1994;Jans, Peters, & De Weerd, 2010;Jonides, 1983), or (b) multiple foci deployed to different locations simultaneously (e.g., Awh & Pashler, 2000;Cave, Bush, & Taylor, 2010; Kawahara & Yamada, 2007;McMains & Somers, 2004, 2005Müller et al., 2003). Here we demonstrate that focused attention can be flexibly deployed in either a unitary or a divided mode. Specifically, our goal was to show that both modes of attentional deployment can occur when viewing the same stimulus displays, and that whether spatial attention is unitary or divided will depend on the expectations of the observer.To allow both types of attentional deployment to be assessed with the same experimental procedure, we modified two well-established behavioral measures of attention: the attentional blink and Lag-1 sparing. The attentional blink (AB) refers to the impaired identification of the second of two rapidly-sequential targets (T1, T2). This deficit is most pronounced at short inter-target lags, and vanishes at lags beyond about 500 ms (Chun & Potter, 1995;Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992).Lag-1 sparing refers to the somewhat paradoxical finding that identification of the second target is unimpaired when it appears directly after the first target in the same spatial location (Potter, Chun, Banks, & Muckenhoupt, 1998;Visser et al., 1999). It is...

show abstract

Ignorance is bliss: The role of observer expectation in dynamic spatial tuning of the attentional focus

Cited by 36 publications

References 21 publications

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

The attentional blink and lag 1 sparing are nonspatial

Mapping the spatiotemporal dynamics of interference between two visual targets

The flexible focus: Whether spatial attention is unitary or divided depends on observer goals.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About