The attention cascade model and attentional blink

Beyond a mask and against the bottleneck: Retroactive dual-task interference during working memory consolidation of a masked visual target.

“…2 It is worth mentioning that proponents on both sides of this debate have argued against each other's proposals, such that Vogel et al (2006) argued that "the attentional blink paradigm does not provide a good means of estimating the time course of WM consolidation" (p. 1437), whereas researchers working on the attentional blink have argued that "the manipulation of memory-mask stimulus onset asynchrony" used by Vogel et al does not affect "consolidation duration" (p. 224;Shih, 2008) and therefore should not be taken as a proper means for estimating the time course of WMC.…”

“…To wit, the typical pattern of results obtained in these experiments is that performance on the second target suffers a pronounced attentional blink effect, whereas performance on the first target is relatively accurate, unless it is followed within less than about 100 ms by the second target (see Figure 6; Dux & Marois, 2009;Martens & Wyble, 2010). In accounting for this pattern of results, it is often assumed that the attentional blink effect for the second target reflects an interference effect that is caused by the consolidation of the first target, with one proposal being that the consolidation of the first target results in an attentional blink because it involves a slow and immutable processing bottleneck (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995;Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998;Shih, 2008), whereas another proposes that the consolidation of the first target results in an attentional blink because it leads to a momentary lack of attention for newly encountered stimuli (e.g., Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Wyble et al, 2009Wyble et al, , 2011; see also Taatgen et al, 2009). According to both accounts, the initial "sparing" effect seen for second-target recall at an SOA of 100 ms occurs because the selection of information for consolidation in working memory occurs during an attentional episode that is initiated upon detection of the first target and that lasts approximately 100 -200 ms, thus allowing a second target to be selected for consolidation in the slipstream of the first target.…”

“…To this end, we examined if and for how long the processing of a masked display of to-be-remembered stimuli can be disrupted by a trailing 2-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) task. The rationale underlying this approach resembles that underlying the interruption-bymasking approach (e.g., Gegenfurtner & Sperling, 1993;Vogel et al, 2006) in that it aimed to characterize the time course of WMC 1 It is worth noting that the implications of such a rapid consolidation process reach beyond theories of the attentional blink, as the assumption that WMC involves a relatively slow process also features in other theories, including the theory of short-term memory proposed by Jonides et al (2008) and Oberauer and colleagues' theory of performance in the complex span task (Oberauer, Lewandowsky, Farrell, Jarrold, & Greaves, 2012).2 It is worth mentioning that proponents on both sides of this debate have argued against each other's proposals, such that Vogel et al (2006) argued that "the attentional blink paradigm does not provide a good means of estimating the time course of WM consolidation" (p. 1437), whereas researchers working on the attentional blink have argued that "the manipulation of memory-mask stimulus onset asynchrony" used by Vogel et al does not affect "consolidation duration" (p. 224;Shih, 2008) and therefore should not be taken as a proper means for estimating the time course of WMC. …”

“…Importantly, this effect has been shown to occur regardless of whether the first target is masked (e.g., Nieuwenstein, Potter, & Theeuwes, 2009) but only if the first target can be recalled (Nieuwenstein, Van der Burg, Theeuwes, Wyble, & Potter, 2009), and it has also been found that the magnitude of the attentional blink is stronger when the amount of to-be-consolidated information is increased for the first target (Olson, Chun, & Anderson, 2001;Ouimet & Jolicoeur, 2007; see also Tombu et al, 2011). Accordingly, theories of the attentional blink generally assume that this effect reflects a consequence of consolidating the first target in memory, thus suggesting that the consolidation of a visual stimulus continues for several hundred milliseconds even after it has been masked (Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Chun & Potter, 1995;Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998;Shih, 2008; Taatgen, Juvina, Schippers, Borst, & Martens, 2009;Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2009;Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2011; see also Lagroix, Spalek, Wyble, Jannati, & Di Lollo, 2012). In explaining how this might occur, theories of the attentional blink generally converge in assuming that the effect of a visual mask is confined to disrupting the processing of stimuli prior to selection for consolidation, that is, during the first stage of processing.…”

“…In explaining how this might occur, theories of the attentional blink generally converge in assuming that the effect of a visual mask is confined to disrupting the processing of stimuli prior to selection for consolidation, that is, during the first stage of processing. Once selected for consolidation, however, the representation of a stimulus is thought to undergo a strengthening (Shih, 2008) or binding process (Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Wyble et al, 2009Wyble et al, , 2011 that allows this representation to be sustained even in the face of a trailing mask, until consolidation is completed. …”