The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Abstract

Identification of the second of two targets is impaired if it is presented less than about 500 ms after the first. Theoretical accounts of this second-target deficit, known as attentional blink (AB), have relied on some form of limited attentional resource that is allocated to the leading target at the expense of the trailing target. Three experiments in the present study reveal a failure of resource-limitation accounts to explain why the AB is absent when the targets consist of a stream of three items belonging to the same category (e.g., letters or digits). The AB is reinstated, however, if an item from a different category is inserted in the target string. This result, and all major results in the AB literature, is explained by the hypothesis that the AB arises from a temporary loss of control over the prevailing attentional set. This lapse in control renders the observer vulnerable to an exogenously-triggered switch in attentional set.

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

“…Numerous studies (e.g., Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005;Nieuwenstein & Potter, 2006;Olivers, van der Stigchel, Hulleman, 2007) have reported an attenuation of the AB deficit in paradigms making use of the consecutive presentation of multiple targets, suggesting that a period of sustained consolidation can be generated under certain conditions. If predictive items have gained salience it may be that they behave more like targets and induce such a "spreading of sparing"…”

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

“…Other models of the AB proposed that the mask following T1 plays an essential role in the production of the AB, either because of a competition between targets and masks , because of a disruption of the current attentional set (Di Lollo et al, 2005) or because of distractor inhibition (Olivers and Meeter, 2008;Taatgen et al, 2009). However, these models can hardly explain (i) the influence of RT1 on T2 report and central components, as observed in the present results, and (ii) a strong AB in our paradigm which used an unmasked sound as T1.…”

The attentional blink: Increasing target salience provides no evidence for resource depletion. A commentary on Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008)

“…Processing of the first target (T1) is said to deplete vital mental resources, to the detriment of the second (T2). There are several versions of this theory (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995;Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998), but all share the idea that T2 is starved for resources, and that T1 is the culprit.A recent set of studies has posed a severe challenge to resource depletion accounts (Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005;Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007; see also Kawahara, Kumada, & Di Lollo, 2006). The critical finding in these studies was the absence of an AB deficit for the third of three targets presented sequentially.…”

“…A recent set of studies has posed a severe challenge to resource depletion accounts (Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005;Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007; see also Kawahara, Kumada, & Di Lollo, 2006). The critical finding in these studies was the absence of an AB deficit for the third of three targets presented sequentially.…”

“…Di Lollo et al (2005) and Olivers and colleagues (Olivers, 2007;Olivers et al, 2007) have proposed that the problem is not so much one of attentional resources, but of attentional control. They assume that observers implement an input filter or attentional set aimed at selecting targets and ignoring distractors.…”