Priming from the Attentional Blink: A Failure to Extract Visual Tokens but Not Visual Types

When people must detect several targets in a very rapid stream of successive visual events at the same location, detection of an initial target induces misses for subsequent targets within a brief period. This attentional blink may serve to prevent interruption of ongoing target processing by temporarily suppressing vision for subsequent stimuli. We examined the level at which the internal blink operates, specifically, whether it prevents early visual processing or prevents quite substantial processing from reaching awareness. Our data support the latter view. We observed priming from missed letter targets, benefiting detection of a subsequent target with the same identity but a different case. In a second study, we observed semantic priming from word targets that were missed during the blink. These results demonstrate that attentional gating within the blink operates only after substantial stimulus processing has already taken place. The results are discussed in terms of two forms of visual representation, namely, types and tokens.

[1]  N. Moray Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[2]  S. Monsell Recency, immediate recognition memory, and reaction time , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  G. Sperling,et al.  Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. , 1987, Science.

[4]  N. Kanwisher Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[5]  D. Broadbent,et al.  From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  M. Potter,et al.  Repetition blindness: levels of processing. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  How semantic is automatic semantic priming , 1992 .

[9]  Kimron Shapiro,et al.  Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision , 1994, Nature.

[10]  K. Shapiro,et al.  Temporal allocation of visual attention: Inhibition or interference? , 1994 .

[11]  W S Maki,et al.  Transient suppression of processing during rapid serial visual presentation: Acquired distinctiveness of probes modulates the attentional blink , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  K. Shapiro,et al.  Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  M. Potter,et al.  A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Jane E. Raymond,et al.  Similarity determines the attentional blink. , 1995 .

[15]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Similarity determines the attentional blink. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  E. Vogel,et al.  Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink , 1996, Nature.

[17]  K. Shapiro,et al.  Personal names and the attentional blink: a visual "cocktail party" effect. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  W. Maki,et al.  Associative priming by targets and distractors during rapid serial visual presentation: does word meaning survive the attentional blink? , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.