The flanker effect does not reflect the processing of “task-irrelevant-stimuli: Evidence from inattentional blindness

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Simona Buetti ; Alejandro Lleras ; Cathleen M. Moore
• 关键词：Selective attention ; Inattentional blindness ; Flanker effect ; Task irrelevant ; Distraction
• 刊名：Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：October 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：21
• 期：5
• 页码：1231-1237
• 全文大小：184 KB
• 参考文献：1. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. / Psychological Review, 97, 523-47. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.4.523 CrossRef
  2. Eitam, B., Yeshurun, Y., & Hassan, K. (2013). Blinded by irrelevance: Pure irrelevance induced “blindness. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 611-15. doi:10.1037/a0032269
  3. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non-search task. / Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-49. doi:10.3758/BF03203267 CrossRef
  4. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 317-29. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.317
  5. Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2008). Top-down control settings and the attentional blink: Evidence for nonspatial contingent capture. / Visual Cognition, 16, 616-42. doi:10.1080/13506280601134018 CrossRef
  6. James, W. (1890). / The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Henry Holt. CrossRef
  7. Kim, S.-Y., Kim, M.-S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. / Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16524-6529. doi:10.1073/pnas.0505454102 CrossRef
  8. Kornblum, S., Stevens, G. T., Whipple, A., & Requin, J. (1999). The effects of irrelevant stimuli: 1. The time course of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response consistency effects with Stroop-like stimuli, Simon-like tasks, and their factorial combinations. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 688-14.
  9. Kyllingsb?k, S., Sy, J. L., & Giesbrecht, B. (2011). Understanding the allocation of attention when faced with varying perceptual load in partial report: A computational approach. / Neuropsychologia, 49, 1487-497. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.039 CrossRef
  10. Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. / Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-48. doi:10.1177/0963721410370295 CrossRef
  11. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339-54. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339 CrossRef
  12. Lleras, A., Buetti, S., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2013). When do the effects of distractors provide a measure of distractibility? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), / The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 59, pp. 261-16). San Diego: Academic Press.
  13. Lleras, A., Chu, H., Buetti, S. (2014). / Attentional capture by irrelevant noise stimuli increases with perceptual load: A failure to replicate Forster and Lavie (2008). Manuscript submitted for publication.
  14. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. / Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174-07. doi:10.3758/BF03210959 CrossRef
  15. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). / Inattentional blindness. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  16. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. / Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-03. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 CrossRef
  17. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. / Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247-79. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-X CrossRef
  18. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. / Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 419-34. doi:10.3758/BF03203035 CrossRef
  19. Palmer, J., & Moore, C. M. (2009). Using a filtering task to measure the spatial extent of selective attention. / Vision Research, 49, 1045-064. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.022 CrossRef
  20. Saenz, M., Buracas, G. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2002). Global effects of feature-based attention in human visual cortex. / Nature Neuroscience, 5, 631-32. doi:10.1038/nn876 CrossRef
  21. Scalf, P. E., & Beck, D. M. (2010). Competition in visual cortex impedes attention to multiple items. / Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 161-69. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4207-09.2010 CrossRef
  22. Serences, J., & Boynton, G. (2007). Feature-based attentional modulations in the absence of direct visual stimulation. / Neuron, 55, 1-2. CrossRef
  23. Torralbo, A., & Beck, D. (2008). Perceptual-load-induced selection as a result of local competitive interactions in visual cortex. / Psychological Science, 19, 1045-050. CrossRef
  24. Treue, S., & Martínez Trujillo, J. C. (1999). Feature-based attention influences motion processing gain in macaque visual cortex. / Nature, 399, 575-79. doi:10.1038/21176 CrossRef
  25. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-38. doi:10.3758/BF03200774 CrossRef
  26. Yigit-Elliott, S., Palmer, J., & Moore, C. M. (2011). Distinguishing blocking from attenuation in visual selective attention. / Psychological Science, 22, 771-80. doi:10.1177/0956797611407927 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Simona Buetti (1)
  Alejandro Lleras (1)
  Cathleen M. Moore (2)
  
  1. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL, 61820, USA
  2. Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  
• ISSN：1531-5320

文摘

It is often the case that stimuli (or aspects of a stimulus) are referred to as being “task-irrelevant.-Here, we recount where this label originated and argue that the use of this label is at odds with the concept of “relevance-that has arisen in the contingent-capture literature. This is not merely a matter of labels, but a matter of inference: When people describe a flanker stimulus as being “task-irrelevant,-they may be (and sometimes are) tempted to infer that the conditions that were studied in the flanker task generalize to other tasks and other types of stimuli. Here, we show that this generalization is not warranted. The flanker effect exists not because attention has failed at selecting only the target from the display, but rather, the effect arises precisely because attention succeeded at selecting target-like (i.e., attentionally relevant) stimuli from the display. As a result, the flanker effect should not be used to infer how stimuli that are entirely unrelated to a participant’s main task would be processed. We propose the use of a new terminology to replace this potentially misleading label.