Two noncontiguous locations can be attended concurrently: Evidence from the attentional blink

When two targets (T1 and T2) are inserted in a rapid stream of visual distractors (RSVP), detection/ identification accuracy of T2 is impaired at intertarget lags shorter than about 500 msec. This phenomenon, the attentional blink (AB), has been regarded as a hallmark of the inability of the visual system to process multiple items. Yet, paradoxically, the AB is much reduced when T2 is presented directly after T1 (known aslag-1 sparing). Because lag-1 sparing is said to depend on observers’ spatial attention being set to process the first target, we predicted that if observers are set to monitor two RSVP streams, they could process more than two items; that is, two instances of lag-1 sparing would be obtained concurrently. The results of three experiments indicated that this was the case. When observers searched for two targets in each of two synchronized RSVP streams, lag-1 sparing occurred concurrently in both streams. These results suggest that the visual system can handle up to four items at one moment under RSVP circumstances.

[1]  H. Pashler,et al.  Evidence for split attentional foci. , 2000, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[2]  K. Shapiro,et al.  The attentional blink , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Walter F. Bischof,et al.  Attentional switching in spatial and nonspatial domains : Evidence from the attentional blink , 1999 .

[4]  S. A. Hillyard,et al.  Sustained division of the attentional spotlight , 2003, Nature.

[5]  R. Remington,et al.  Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: evidence for two forms of attentional capture. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  T. A. Ryan,et al.  Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances, and other statistics. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  J. Kawahara.  Facilitation of local information processing in the attentional blink as indexed by the shooting line illusion , 2002, Psychological research.

[8]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[9]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[10]  E. Vogel,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for a Postperceptual Locus of Suppression during the Attentional Blink Time-based Attention and the Attentional Blink , 1998 .

[11]  R. Marois,et al.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  M C Potter,et al.  Two attentional deficits in serial target search: the visual attentional blink and an amodal task-switch deficit. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  N. Mackworth.  Visual noise causes tunnel vision , 1965 .

[14]  S. Shih.  Recall of two visual targets embedded in RSVP streams of distractors depends on their temporal and spatial relationship , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  V. Lollo,et al.  The attentional blink with targets in different spatial locations , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[16]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Attentional requirements in a ‘preattentive’ feature search task , 1997, Nature.

[17]  H. Bouma.  Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[18]  A. Kramer,et al.  Splitting the Beam: Distribution of Attention Over Noncontiguous Regions of the Visual Field , 1995 .

[19]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  B. Julesz.  Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions , 1981, Nature.