scholarly journals Individual differences in dispositional focus of attention predict attentional blink magnitude

2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Dale ◽  
Karen M. Arnell
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Attentional Blink Magnitude

Visual disgust-elicitors produce an attentional blink independent of contextual and trait-level pathogen avoidance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Perone ◽  
David Vaughn Becker ◽  
Joshua M. Tybur
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Attentional Biases ◽  
Attentional Processing ◽  
Trait Level ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Pathogen Avoidance

Multiple studies report that disgust-eliciting stimuli are perceived as salient and subsequently capture selective attention. In the current study, we aimed to better understand the nature of temporal attentional biases toward disgust-eliciting stimuli and to investigate the extent to which these biases are sensitive to contextual and trait-level pathogen avoidance motives. Participants (N=116) performed in an Emotional Attentional Blink (EAB) task in which task-irrelevant disgust-eliciting, fear-eliciting, or neutral images preceded a target by 200, 500, or 800 milliseconds (i.e., lag two, five and eight respectively). They did so twice - once while not exposed to an odor, and once while exposed to either an odor that elicited disgust or an odor that did not - and completed a measure of disgust sensitivity. Results indicate that disgust-eliciting visual stimuli produced a greater attentional blink than neutral visual stimuli at lag two and a greater attentional blink than fear-eliciting visual stimuli at both lag two and at lag five. Neither the odor manipulations nor individual differences measures moderated this effect. We propose that visual attention is engaged for a longer period of time following disgust-eliciting stimuli because covert processes automatically initiate the evaluation of pathogen threats. The fact that state and trait pathogen avoidance do not influence this temporal attentional bias suggests that early attentional processing of pathogen cues is initiated independent from the context in which such cues are perceived.

scholarly journals The more your mind wanders, the smaller your attentional blink: An individual differences study

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Thomson ◽  
Brandon C. W. Ralph ◽  
Derek Besner ◽  
Daniel Smilek
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Blink

scholarly journals Working memory and the attentional blink: Blink size is predicted by individual differences in operation span

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1051-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenza S. Colzato ◽  
Michiel M. A. Spapé ◽  
Merel M. Pannebakker ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Operation Span

scholarly journals Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 2382-2393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raquel E. London ◽  
Heleen A. Slagter
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Cathodal Tdcs ◽  
Left Dlpfc

Selection mechanisms that dynamically gate only relevant perceptual information for further processing and sustained representation in working memory are critical for goal-directed behavior. We examined whether this gating process can be modulated by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over left dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC)—a region known to play a key role in working memory and conscious access. Specifically, we examined the effects of tDCS on the magnitude of the so-called “attentional blink” (AB), a deficit in identifying the second of two targets presented in rapid succession. Thirty-four participants performed a standard AB task before (baseline), during, and after 20 min of 1-mA anodal and cathodal tDCS in two separate sessions. On the basis of previous reports linking individual differences in AB magnitude to individual differences in DLPFC activity and on suggestions that effects of tDCS depend on baseline brain activity levels, we hypothesized that anodal tDCS over left DLPFC would modulate the magnitude of the AB as a function of individual baseline AB magnitude. Indeed, individual differences analyses revealed that anodal tDCS decreased the AB in participants with a large baseline AB but increased the AB in participants with a small baseline AB. This effect was only observed during (but not after) stimulation, was not found for cathodal tDCS, and could not be explained by regression to the mean. Notably, the effects of tDCS were not apparent at the group level, highlighting the importance of taking individual variability in performance into account when evaluating the effectiveness of tDCS. These findings support the idea that left DLPFC plays a critical role in the AB and in conscious access more generally. They are also in line with the notion that there is an optimal level of prefrontal activity for cognitive function, with both too little and too much activity hurting performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document