Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?

Research output: Contribution to conference › Conference abstract for conference › Research › peer-review

Standard

Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink? / Nielsen, Simon; Petersen, Anders; Andersen, Tobias Søren.

2009. Abstract from Vision Sciences Society, Naples, Florida, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conference › Conference abstract for conference › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Nielsen, S, Petersen, A & Andersen, TS 2009, 'Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?', Vision Sciences Society, Naples, Florida, United States, 08/05/2009 - 13/05/2009. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.8.156

APA

Nielsen, S., Petersen, A., & Andersen, T. S. (2009). Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?. Abstract from Vision Sciences Society, Naples, Florida, United States. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.8.156

Vancouver

Nielsen S, Petersen A, Andersen TS. Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?. 2009. Abstract from Vision Sciences Society, Naples, Florida, United States. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.8.156

Author

Nielsen, Simon ; Petersen, Anders ; Andersen, Tobias Søren. / Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?. Abstract from Vision Sciences Society, Naples, Florida, United States.1 p.

Bibtex

@conference{7a052000437145099b971973eddb4525,
title = "Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?",
abstract = "When two visual targets (T1 & T2) are presented in rapid succession, performance of T2 suffers up to 900 ms. One theory of this attentional blink (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992) propose that T1 and T2 compete for limited processing resources (Chun & Potter, 1995), and predict that prolonging processing time for T1 by increasing its perceptual difficulty will induce a larger blink. Several studies have tested this prediction without reaching a consistent answer. McLaughlin, Shore, & Klein (2001) found no effect of the exposure duration of T1 on the attentional blink. Christmann & Leuthold (2004) found that increasing the contrast of T1 decreased the attentional blink but Chua (2005) found the opposite effect. In the current study, we varied the perceptual difficulty of T1 in the two-target paradigm (Duncan, Ward, & Shapiro, 1994) both by changing the contrast and by changing the exposure duration. In the hard condition, T1 exposure duration was 10 ms while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach 50% correct T1 identification. In the long duration condition, T1 exposure duration was increased to reach approximately 90% correct T1 identification. In the high contrast condition, T1 exposure duration was the same as in the hard condition while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach the same performance on the T1 identification task as obtained in the long duration condition. Six observers completed 260 trials in each of the three conditions. We found a strong effect of T1–T2 latency on performance in the T2 identification task in all conditions, replicating the finding of an attentional blink. However, we found no difference in the attentional blink between conditions. We conclude that increasing the perceptual difficulty of T1 either by decreasing T1 contrast or T1 exposure duration is not sufficient for modulating the attentional blink.",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, Attentional blink, Visual Attention, Target difficulty",
author = "Simon Nielsen and Anders Petersen and Andersen, {Tobias S{\o}ren}",
year = "2009",
month = jun,
day = "11",
doi = "10.1167/9.8.156",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 08-05-2009 Through 13-05-2009",

}

RIS

TY - ABST

T1 - Under which conditions does T1 difficulty affect T2 performance in the attentional blink?

AU - Nielsen, Simon

AU - Petersen, Anders

AU - Andersen, Tobias Søren

N1 - Conference code: 9th annual meeting

PY - 2009/6/11

Y1 - 2009/6/11

N2 - When two visual targets (T1 & T2) are presented in rapid succession, performance of T2 suffers up to 900 ms. One theory of this attentional blink (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992) propose that T1 and T2 compete for limited processing resources (Chun & Potter, 1995), and predict that prolonging processing time for T1 by increasing its perceptual difficulty will induce a larger blink. Several studies have tested this prediction without reaching a consistent answer. McLaughlin, Shore, & Klein (2001) found no effect of the exposure duration of T1 on the attentional blink. Christmann & Leuthold (2004) found that increasing the contrast of T1 decreased the attentional blink but Chua (2005) found the opposite effect. In the current study, we varied the perceptual difficulty of T1 in the two-target paradigm (Duncan, Ward, & Shapiro, 1994) both by changing the contrast and by changing the exposure duration. In the hard condition, T1 exposure duration was 10 ms while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach 50% correct T1 identification. In the long duration condition, T1 exposure duration was increased to reach approximately 90% correct T1 identification. In the high contrast condition, T1 exposure duration was the same as in the hard condition while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach the same performance on the T1 identification task as obtained in the long duration condition. Six observers completed 260 trials in each of the three conditions. We found a strong effect of T1–T2 latency on performance in the T2 identification task in all conditions, replicating the finding of an attentional blink. However, we found no difference in the attentional blink between conditions. We conclude that increasing the perceptual difficulty of T1 either by decreasing T1 contrast or T1 exposure duration is not sufficient for modulating the attentional blink.

AB - When two visual targets (T1 & T2) are presented in rapid succession, performance of T2 suffers up to 900 ms. One theory of this attentional blink (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992) propose that T1 and T2 compete for limited processing resources (Chun & Potter, 1995), and predict that prolonging processing time for T1 by increasing its perceptual difficulty will induce a larger blink. Several studies have tested this prediction without reaching a consistent answer. McLaughlin, Shore, & Klein (2001) found no effect of the exposure duration of T1 on the attentional blink. Christmann & Leuthold (2004) found that increasing the contrast of T1 decreased the attentional blink but Chua (2005) found the opposite effect. In the current study, we varied the perceptual difficulty of T1 in the two-target paradigm (Duncan, Ward, & Shapiro, 1994) both by changing the contrast and by changing the exposure duration. In the hard condition, T1 exposure duration was 10 ms while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach 50% correct T1 identification. In the long duration condition, T1 exposure duration was increased to reach approximately 90% correct T1 identification. In the high contrast condition, T1 exposure duration was the same as in the hard condition while T1 contrast was adjusted individually to reach the same performance on the T1 identification task as obtained in the long duration condition. Six observers completed 260 trials in each of the three conditions. We found a strong effect of T1–T2 latency on performance in the T2 identification task in all conditions, replicating the finding of an attentional blink. However, we found no difference in the attentional blink between conditions. We conclude that increasing the perceptual difficulty of T1 either by decreasing T1 contrast or T1 exposure duration is not sufficient for modulating the attentional blink.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Attentional blink

KW - Visual Attention

KW - Target difficulty

U2 - 10.1167/9.8.156

DO - 10.1167/9.8.156

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

Y2 - 8 May 2009 through 13 May 2009

ER -

ID: 130478902