Abstract

BackgroundWhen observers are asked to identify two targets in rapid sequence, they often suffer profound performance deficits for the second target, even when the spatial location of the targets is known. This attentional blink (AB) is usually attributed to the time required to process a previous target, implying that a link should exist between individual differences in information processing speed and the AB.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe present work investigated this question by examining the relationship between a rapid automatized naming task typically used to assess information-processing speed and the magnitude of the AB. The results indicated that faster processing actually resulted in a greater AB, but only when targets were presented amongst high similarity distractors. When target-distractor similarity was minimal, processing speed was unrelated to the AB.Conclusions/SignificanceOur findings indicate that information-processing speed is unrelated to target processing efficiency per se, but rather to individual differences in observers' ability to suppress distractors. This is consistent with evidence that individuals who are able to avoid distraction are more efficient at deploying temporal attention, but argues against a direct link between general processing speed and efficient information selection.

Highlights

  • A chief requirement for effective visual perception is the ability to select relevant information from rapidly shifting sensory inputs

  • Conclusions/Significance: Our findings indicate that information-processing speed is unrelated to target processing efficiency per se, but rather to individual differences in observers’ ability to suppress distractors

  • The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between information processing speed and temporal attention

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A chief requirement for effective visual perception is the ability to select relevant information from rapidly shifting sensory inputs. Observers are presented with a stream of sequential distractors, within which are embedded one or more target items This setup yields good accuracy for an initial target (T1); identification of a second target (T2) is generally impaired when it follows T1 closely in time (,,500 ms). When observers are asked to identify two targets in rapid sequence, they often suffer profound performance deficits for the second target, even when the spatial location of the targets is known. This attentional blink (AB) is usually attributed to the time required to process a previous target, implying that a link should exist between individual differences in information processing speed and the AB

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call