scholarly journals Kanizsa-figure object completion determines attentional selection in time: Evidence from the attentional blink

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 1114
Author(s):  
Markus Conci ◽  
Qi-Yang Nie ◽  
Hermann Müller ◽  
Siyi Chen
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Attentional Selection ◽  
Kanizsa Figure

Modality-specific auditory and visual temporal processing deficits

2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvador Soto-Faraco ◽  
Charles Spence
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Temporal Processing ◽  
Spatial Location ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Attentional Selection ◽  
The Other ◽  
Repetition Blindness ◽  
Presentation Procedure ◽  
Selection Stage ◽  
Lag 1 Sparing

We studied the attentional blink (AB) and the repetition blindness (RB) effects using an audio-visual presentation procedure designed to overcome several potential methodological confounds in previous cross-modal research. In Experiment 1, two target digits were embedded amongst letter distractors in two concurrent streams (one visual and the other auditory) presented from the same spatial location. Targets appeared in either modality unpredictably at different temporal lags, and the participants’ task was to recall the digits at the end of the trial. We evaluated both AB and RB for pairs of targets presented in either the same or different modalities. Under these conditions both AB and RB were observed in vision, AB but not RB was observed in audition, and there was no evidence of AB or RB cross-modally from audition to vision or vice versa. In Experiment 2, we further investigated the AB by including Lag 1 items and observed Lag 1 sparing, thus ruling out the possibility that the observed effects were due to perceptual and/or conceptual masking. Our results support a distinction between a modality-specific interference at the attentional selection stage and a modality-independent interference at later processing stages. They also provide a new dissociation between the AB and RB.

scholarly journals Representational Dynamics Preceding Conscious Access

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josipa Alilović ◽  
Dirk van Moorselaar ◽  
Marcel Graetz ◽  
Simon van Gaal ◽  
Heleen A. Slagter
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Attentional Selection ◽  
Dynamic Changes ◽  
Attention Task ◽  
Gating Mechanism ◽  
Significant Impairment ◽  
Eeg Activation ◽  
Task Conditions

AbstractOur senses are continuously bombarded with more information than our brain can process up to the level of awareness. The present study aimed to enhance understanding on how attentional selection shapes conscious access under conditions of rapidly changing input. Using an attention task, EEG, and multivariate decoding of individual target- and distractor-defining features, we specifically examined dynamic changes in the representation of targets and distractors as a function of conscious access and the task-relevance (target or distractor) of the preceding item in the RSVP stream. At the behavioral level, replicating previous work and suggestive of a flexible gating mechanism, we found a significant impairment in conscious access to targets (T2) that were preceded by a target (T1) followed by one or two distractors (i.e., the attentional blink), but striking facilitation of conscious access to targets shown directly after another target (i.e., lag-1 sparing and blink reversal). At the neural level, conscious access to T2 was associated with enhanced early- and late-stage T1 representations and enhanced late-stage D1 representations, and interestingly, could be predicted based on the pattern of EEG activation well before T1 was presented. Yet, across task conditions, we did not find convincing evidence for the notion that conscious access is affected by rapid top-down selection-related modulations of the strength of early sensory representations induced by the preceding visual event. These results cannot easily be explained by existing accounts of how attentional selection shapes conscious access under rapidly changing input conditions, and have important implications for theories of the attentional blink and consciousness more generally.

scholarly journals Quick Minds Don't Blink: Electrophysiological Correlates of Individual Differences in Attentional Selection

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1423-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sander Martens ◽  
Jaap Munneke ◽  
Hendrikus Smid ◽  
Addie Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Attentional Selection ◽  
Target Information ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Task Conditions ◽  
Electroencephalographic Activity ◽  
Better Than

A well-established phenomenon in the study of attention is the attentional blink—a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200–500 msec after the first. Although the effect has been shown to be robust in a variety of task conditions, not every individual participant shows the effect. We measured electroencephalographic activity for “nonblinkers” and “blinkers” during execution of a task in which two letters had to be detected in an sequential stream of digit distractors. Nonblinkers showed an earlier P3 peak, suggesting that they are quicker to consolidate information than are blinkers. Differences in frontal selection positivity were also found, such that nonblinkers showed a larger difference between target and distractor activation than did blinkers. Nonblinkers seem to extract target information better than blinkers do, allowing them to reject distractors more easily and leaving sufficient resources available to report both targets.

scholarly journals Kanizsa-figure object completion gates selection in the attentional blink

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 1741-1755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siyi Chen ◽  
Qi-Yang Nie ◽  
Hermann J Müller ◽  
Markus Conci
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Memory Consolidation ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Task Relevance ◽  
Attentional Resources ◽  
Irrelevant Distractors ◽  
Kanizsa Figure ◽  
Initial Selection

Previous work has demonstrated that perceptual grouping modulates the selectivity of attention across space. By contrast, how grouping influences the allocation of attention over time is much less clear. This study investigated this issue, using an attentional blink (AB) paradigm to test how grouping influences the initial selection and the subsequent short-term memory consolidation of a target. On a given trial, two red Kanizsa-type targets (T1 and T2) with varying grouping strength were embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of irrelevant distractors. Our results showed the typical AB finding: impaired identification of T2 when presented close in time following T1. Moreover, the AB was modulated by the T2 grouping—independently of the T1 structure—with stronger grouping leading to a decreased AB and overall higher performance. Conversely, a reversed pattern, namely an increased AB with increasing grouping strength was observed when the Kanizsa figure was not task-relevant. Together, these findings suggest that the grouping benefit emerges at early perceptual stages, automatically drawing attentional resources, thereby leading to either sustained benefits or transient costs—depending on the task-relevance of the grouped object. This indicates that grouping modulates processing of objects in time.

A Quick Visual Mind Can be a Slow Auditory Mind

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sander Martens ◽  
Addie Johnson ◽  
Martje Bolle ◽  
Jelmer Borst
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Conscious Level ◽  
Visual Targets ◽  
Concurrent Information

The human mind is severely limited in processing concurrent information at a conscious level of awareness. These temporal restrictions are clearly reflected in the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200–500 ms after the first. However, we recently reported that some individuals do not show a visual AB, and presented psychophysiological evidence that target processing differs between “blinkers” and “nonblinkers”. Here, we present evidence that visual nonblinkers do show an auditory AB, which suggests that a major source of attentional restriction as reflected in the AB is likely to be modality-specific. In Experiment 3, we show that when the difficulty in identifying visual targets is increased, nonblinkers continue to show little or no visual AB, suggesting that the presence of an AB in the auditory but not in the visual modality is not due to a difference in task difficulty.

Parameterizing the attentional blink effect.

2006 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Cousineau ◽  
Dominic Charbonneau ◽  
Pierre Jolicoeur
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Attentional Blink Effect
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document