Reconceptualizing Perceptual Load as a Rate Problem: The Role of Time in the Allocation of Selective Attention

In the literature about allocation of selective attention, a widely studied question is when will attention be allocated to information that is clearly irrelevant to the task at hand. The present study, by using convergent evidence, demonstrated that there is a trade-off between quantity of information present in a display and the time allowed to process it. Specifically, whether or not there is interference from irrelevant distractors depends not only on the amount of information present, but also on the amount of time allowed to process that information. When processing time is calibrated to the amount of information present, irrelevant distractors can be selectively ignored successfully. These results suggest that the perceptual load in the load theory of selective attention (i.e., Lavie, 2005) should be thought about as a dynamic rate problem rather than a static capacity limitation. The authors thus propose that rather than conceiving of perceptual load as a quantity of information, they should consider it as a quantity of information per unit of time. In other words, it is the relationship between the quantity of information in the task and the time for processing the information that determines the allocation of selective attention. Thus, the present findings extended load theory, allowing it to explain findings that were previously considered as counter evidence of load theory.

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

[2]  Daryl E. Wilson,et al.  Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Hanna Benoni,et al.  Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects , 2010 .

[4]  Ken Kelley,et al.  Sample-Size Planning for More Accurate Statistical Power: A Method Adjusting Sample Effect Sizes for Publication Bias and Uncertainty , 2017, Psychological science.

[5]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  N. Lavie.  Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  J. Duncan.  The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. , 1980, Psychological review.

[10]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Perceptual load vs. dilution: the roles of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability , 2013, Front. Psychol..

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

[12]  N. Lavie,et al.  Failures to Ignore Entirely Irrelevant Distractors , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[13]  N. Lavie,et al.  High Perceptual Load Makes Everybody Equal , 2007, Psychological science.

[14]  Shaun P Vecera,et al.  Object-based attention overrides perceptual load to modulate visual distraction. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  C. Koch.  Strategies and Models of Selective Attention , 2010 .

[16]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[17]  N. Lavie,et al.  On the Efficiency of Visual Selective Attention: Efficient Visual Search Leads to Inefficient Distractor Rejection , 1997 .

[18]  J. W. Thomas.  Some Theoretical Considerations , 1995 .

[19]  L. Paquet,et al.  Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[20]  John A. Groeger,et al.  Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next? , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  J Driver,et al.  A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[22]  Kyle R Cave,et al.  Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  L. M. Ward,et al.  Orienting of Attention , 2008 .

[24]  Allison G. McGrath,et al.  Cuing Interacts with Perceptual Load in Visual Search , 2002, Psychological science.

[25]  Shaun P. Vecera,et al.  Response terminated displays unload selective attention , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[26]  Zachary J. J. Roper,et al.  Visual short-term memory load strengthens selective attention , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us About Visual Search? , 1998 .

[28]  Stacy Eltiti,et al.  Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[30]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

[31]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  On the locus of visual selection: evidence from focused attention tasks. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Zhe Chen,et al.  Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.