The role of preparation time in the attentional blink

Abstract

This research investigated the effect of foreperiod predictability in the Attentional Blink (AB). The AB, a cost in processing the second of two targets presented in close temporal proximity, was estimated using a minimalist procedure consisting of two letter targets and two letter fragment masks. In a four-step procedure, differences in foreperiod duration, target exposure duration, and inter-target interval were controlled in order to estimate the AB. Foreperiod was manipulated in three experiments. The AB effect was reduced when a single and relatively long foreperiod value was used (M=880 ms, Experiment 2) in comparison to randomized (250-750 ms, Experiment 1) and single but relatively short foreperiods (M=273 ms, Experiment 3). The results are discussed in the context of resource-sharing and preparation of a perceptual-set pertaining to physical target features including modality and intensity, as well as spatial and temporal predictability. It is concluded that foreperiods that are too brief for an individual observer or temporally unpredictable contribute to the AB.

Temporal cues derived from statistical patterns can overcome resource limitations in the attentional blink

“…On the whole, the present results are in line with previous studies showing that target performance is enhanced by the presence of a consistent interval prior to T1 (Badcock et al, 2013), as well as a broader literature suggesting humans are highly sensitive to statistical patterns and environmental regularities (Turk-Browne et al, 2009;Zhao et al, 2013). The results of Experiments 1 and 3 revealed a strong foreperiod effect at the longest lag in the aging condition, suggesting that participants could make some predictions about T2 onset on the basis of the temporal information afforded by the distribution of lags within a condition.…”

“…Error bars represent one within-subjects standard error of the mean, calculated using the Cousineau-Morey method (Cousineau, 2005;Morey, 2008) Hilkenmeier & Scharlau, 2010;Martens & Johnson, 2005), as well as salient events within the task that indicate the likely appearance of T2 (e.g., Nieuwenstein et al, 2005). However, results have been mixed when participants have not received salient temporal cues and/or no explicit instruction (Badcock et al, 2013;Martens & Johnson, 2005;Tang et al, 2014). This study has clarified the apparent lack of consistency on this issue by demonstrating that participants can use the predictive temporal information contained in the statistical structure of a trial block in order to overcome limitations of attention.…”

“…On the one hand, Badcock, Badcock, Fletcher, and Hogben (2013) found that the AB was ameliorated when T1 was preceded by a distractor stream of a predictable duration. This implies that being able to reliably predict T1 onset aids T2 processing.…”

Temporal cues and the attentional blink: A further examination of the role of expectancy in sequential object perception

“…For example, Zahn and Rosenthal (1966) showed that increasing the proportion of trials at a given foreperiod reduced response times. Badcock, Badcock, Fletcher and Hogben (2013) also found that the AB was ameliorated when T1 followed a lengthy and predictable foreperiod, suggesting that adequate preparation for the appearance of both targets facilitated superior processing. Shen and Alain (2011) found that instructing participants at the beginning of a block of trials to focus attention at a specific time interval following T1 strongly benefited T2 accuracy when it appeared at that interval.…”

Temporal variability predicts the magnitude of between-group attentional blink differences in developmental dyslexia: a meta-analysis

“…339predictable, or cued foreperiods (longer and predictable,Badcock et al 2013; cued, 340 Martens & Johnson 2005). Therefore there seems to be an influence of the temporal 341 orienting of attention (for a review seeNobre, Correa & Coull 2007) in the AB which 342 may also be a component of task-set.…”