Abstract
In this study, we jointly reported in an empirical and a theoretical way, for the first time, two main theories: Lavie’s perceptual load theory and Gaspelin et al.’s attentional dwelling hypothesis. These theories explain in different ways the modulation of the perceptual load/task difficulty over attentional capture by irrelevant distractors and lead to the observation of the opposite results with similar manipulations. We hypothesized that these opposite results may critically depend on the distractor type used by the two experimental procedures (i.e., distractors inside vs. outside the attentional focus, which could be, respectively, considered as potentially relevant vs. completely irrelevant to the main task). Across a series of experiments, we compared both theories within the same paradigm by manipulating both the perceptual load/task difficulty and the distractor type. The results were strongly consistent, suggesting that the influence of task demands on attentional capture varies as a function of the distractor type: while the interference from (relevant) distractors presented inside the attentional focus was consistently higher for high vs. low load conditions, there was no modulation by (irrelevant) distractors presented outside the attentional focus. Moreover, we critically analyzed the theoretical conceptualization of interference using both theories, disentangling important outcomes for the dwelling hypothesis. Our results provide specific insights into new aspects of attentional capture, which can critically redefine these two predominant theories.
Highlights
Since the first studies on attention, it became clear that we cannot assimilate all the massive amounts of stimulation present in the surrounding environment but can assimilate only the intentionally focused part to achieve our current goals (Broadbent, 1958; Ruz and Lupiáñez, 2002)
For the analysis of the results, to have a comparison with both the original paradigms that we have considered in this experiment, we calculated the interference of each distractor type as follows: on one hand, we considered the interference of the irrelevant distractor as the difference between its presence and its absence, exactly as contemplated in the perceptual load theory (Forster and Lavie, 2008b)
Contrary to our more specific predictions based on the perceptual load hypothesis (Lavie, 1995; Forster and Lavie, 2008a), the interference by the irrelevant distractor rather than being weaker in the high compared to the low load condition did not show any significant interaction with the load factor
Summary
Since the first studies on attention, it became clear that we cannot assimilate all the massive amounts of stimulation present in the surrounding environment but can assimilate only the intentionally focused part to achieve our current goals (Broadbent, 1958; Ruz and Lupiáñez, 2002). The first early selection theory was proposed by Broadbent (1958), who considered that as individual processing capacities are limited, the filtering of information should take place at early processing stages, at a sensory level, avoiding a cognitive overload. For other researchers, the selection of the relevant information is possible only after the perceptual analysis of all the stimuli (Deutsch and Deutsch, 1963) This late-selection theory states that the filter does not act on simple physical features but on stimuli perceptually fully processed, acting at the semantic level. Late-selection theories state that our perceptual capacity is unlimited and that the limitations are rather located at the response level, and the selection takes place later, as a gate for information getting access to consciousness
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
