The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory.

Bowman, Howard; Wyble, Brad

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.38

Cited by 276 publications

(521 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

479

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an account rests on a commonly held distinction between two basic stages in the visual perception of a stimulus (Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Chun, 1997;Kanwisher, 1987 Figure 8a depicts a type-token model of single-target processing in the current task. Presentation of the target will activate the relevant type node, which in turn inhibits other nodes.…”

Section: Type-token Models Of Pseudoextinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Pseudoextinction”: Asymmetries in simultaneous attentional selection.

Goodbourn

Holcombe

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report robust visual-field asymmetries associated with selecting simultaneous targets. One letter embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of letters was encircled by a white ring, cueing it as the target to report. In some conditions, 2 RSVP streams were presented concurrently, and targets appeared simultaneously in both. When only 1 stream was cued, performance was similar regardless of whether it was in the left or right visual field. Cueing 2 streams barely affected performance in the left stream, but performance in the right stream suffered markedly. We term this phenomenon pseudoextinction, by analogy to pseudoneglect whereby observers bisect lines to the left of center. Such attentional asymmetries are often believed to originate from a processing imbalance between the 2 cerebral hemispheres. But pseudoextinction also occurred with vertically arrayed streams, with higher efficacy in the superior than in the inferior stream. Mixture modeling of errors indicated that pseudoextinction did not affect the temporal precision or latency of selection episodes; rather, only the efficacy of selection suffered. These findings lead us to suggest that pseudoextinction arises because perceptual traces are activated simultaneously in a visual buffer, but must be tokenized serially. Observers succeed in selecting simultaneous targets because trace activation occurs in parallel. However, observers often fail to report both targets because tokenization proceeds serially: While 1 target is being tokenized, the other’s trace may decay below the activation level necessary for tokenization.

show abstract

Section: Type-token Models Of Pseudoextinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Pseudoextinction”: Asymmetries in simultaneous attentional selection.

Goodbourn

Holcombe

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, many have argued that lag-1 is a special case, in which the T1 and T2 are sometimes processed together, even as a single integrated percept (Akyürek et al, 2012;Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Hommel & Akyürek, 2005;Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2009). …”

Section: Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AB refers to a deficit in correctly reporting the second of two targets when that second target (T2) appears 200-600msec after the first (T1). Most major theories of the AB maintain that it indexes the temporal cost of encoding a stimulus into working memory (Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Chun & Potter, 1995;Olivers & Meeter, 2008). However, it is unclear whether the cost associated with encoding T1 is specific to encoding T2 into working memory, or whether it impacts other functions, such as the conscious perception of T2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This topic is particularly pertinent because it has the potential to throw light on whether WM encoding and conscious perception are synonymous. Within the AB domain, many researchers (including ourselves) have previously assumed that the correct report of T2 (which requires WM encoding) suggests that T2 was consciously perceived (Bowman & Wyble, 2007;Kranczioch, Debener, Maye, & Engel, 2007;Pincham & Szucs, 2012). The assumption that T2 is consciously perceived when (and, indeed, only when) it is correctly reported therefore implies that WM encoding and conscious perception are synonymous:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The experiential blink: Mapping the cost of working memory encoding onto conscious perception in the attentional blink

Pincham

Bowman

Szűcs

2016

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attentional blink (AB) represents a cognitive deficit in reporting the second of two targets (T2), when that second target appears 200-600msec after the first (T1). However, it is unclear how this paradigm impacts the subjective visibility (that is, the conscious perception) of T2, and whether the temporal profile of T2 report accuracy matches the temporal profile of subjective visibility. In order to compare report accuracy and subjective visibility, we asked participants to identify T1 and T2, and to rate the subjective visibility of T2 across two experiments. Event-related potentials were also measured. The results revealed different profiles for the report of T2 versus the subjective visibility of T2, particularly when T1 and T2 appeared within 200msec of one another. Specifically, T2 report accuracy was high but T2 visibility was low when the two targets appeared in close temporal succession, suggesting what we call the Experiential Blink is different from the classic AB. Electrophysiologically, at lag-1, the P3 component was modulated more by subjective visibility than by report accuracy. Collectively, the data indicate that the deficit in accurately reporting T2 is not the same as the deficit in subjectively experiencing T2. This suggests that traditional understandings of the AB may require adjustment and that, consistent with other findings, working memory encoding and conscious perception may not be synonymous.

show abstract

“…For instance, a dominant model of the attentional blink is the simultaneous type -serial token (ST2) model (Bowman and Wyble, 2007;Craston et al, 2009). The ST2 model shares several features of the central interference model.…”

Section: Other Models Of Dual-taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doing two things at once is difficult. When two tasks have to be performed within a short interval, the second is sharply delayed, an effect called the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP). Similarly, when two successive visual targets are briefly flashed, people may fail to detect the second target (Attentional Blink or AB). Although AB and PRP are typically studied in very different paradigms, a recent detailed neuromimetic model suggests that both might arise from the same serial stage during which stimuli gain access to consciousness and, as a result, can be arbitrarily routed to any other appropriate processor. Here, in agreement with this model, we demonstrate that AB and PRP can be obtained on alternate trials of the same cross-modal paradigm and result from limitations in the same brain mechanisms. We asked participants to respond as fast as possible to an auditory target T1 and then to a visual target T2 embedded in a series of distractors, while brain activity was recorded with magnetoencephalography (MEG). For identical stimuli, we observed a mixture of blinked trials, where T2 was entirely missed, and PRP trials, where T2 processing was delayed. MEG recordings showed that PRP and blinked trials underwent identical sensory processing in visual occipitotemporal cortices, even including the non-conscious separation of targets from distractors.However, late activations in frontal cortex (>350 ms), strongly influenced by the speed of task-1 execution, were delayed in PRP trials and absent in blinked trials. Our findings suggest that PRP and AB arise from similar cortical stages, can occur with the same exact stimuli, and are merely distinguished by trial-by-trial fluctuations in task processing.Central and sensory processing in dual-tasks 3

show abstract

The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory.

Cited by 276 publications

References 88 publications

“Pseudoextinction”: Asymmetries in simultaneous attentional selection.

“Pseudoextinction”: Asymmetries in simultaneous attentional selection.

The experiential blink: Mapping the cost of working memory encoding onto conscious perception in the attentional blink

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About