The cost of visual filtering.

Speeded choice responses (reading or naming) to a relevant stimulus under conditions of spatial uncertainty are delayed by the simultaneous occurrence of other events. This "filtering cost" occurs despite high discriminability of target and distractors, which allows parallel detection of the target in search through the same displays. Reading is also delayed when the removal of irrelevant objects from the field coincides with the onset of the target. Filtering costs are caused by the processing of events rather than by the mere presence of irrelevant items. They are eliminated by advance information about the location of the target or by advance presentation of maintained distractors.

[1]  W. Estes,et al.  Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[3]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[4]  M C FLOM,et al.  VISUAL RESOLUTION AND CONTOUR INTERACTION. , 1963, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[5]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[6]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  A Treisman,et al.  Perceptual objects and the cost of filtering , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  G. Keren.  Some considerations of two alleged kinds of selective attention. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  G. T. Gardner.  Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception , 1973 .

[11]  A. Treisman.  VERBAL CUES, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING IN SELECTIVE ATTENTION. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

[12]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[13]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[15]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[16]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[17]  W. Johnston,et al.  In defense of intraperceptual theories of attention. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  E. Spelke,et al.  Dividing Attention Without Alternation or Automaticity , 1980 .

[19]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[20]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Rate of information processing in visual perception: some results and methodological considerations. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  William K. Estes,et al.  Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing , 1972 .

[23]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .