Abstract

The processing of sensory information relies on interacting mechanisms of sustained attention and attentional capture, both of which operate in space and on object features. While evidence indicates that exogenous attentional capture, a mechanism previously understood to be automatic, can be eliminated while concurrently performing a demanding task, we reframe this phenomenon within the theoretical framework of the “attention set” (Most et al., 2005). Consequently, the specific prediction that cuing effects should reappear when feature dimensions of the cue overlap with those in the attention set (i.e., elements of the demanding task) was empirically tested and confirmed using a dual-task paradigm involving both sustained attention and attentional capture, adapted from Santangelo et al. (2007). Participants were required to either detect a centrally presented target presented in a stream of distractors (the primary task), or respond to a spatially cued target (the secondary task). Importantly, the spatial cue could either share features with the target in the centrally presented primary task, or not share any features. Overall, the findings supported the attention set hypothesis showing that a spatial cuing effect was only observed when the peripheral cue shared a feature with objects that were already in the attention set (i.e., the primary task). However, this finding was accompanied by differential attentional orienting dependent on the different types of objects within the attention set, with feature-based orienting occurring for target-related objects, and additional spatial-based orienting for distractor-related objects.

Highlights

  • The processing of sensory information relies on interacting mechanisms of sustained attention and attentional capture, both of which operate in space and on object features

  • It would appear that the introduction of letter cues in Experiment 2 somehow lead to a concomitant generalization or mapping to rectangle cues, unlike in Experiment 1 where cuing effects were limited only to the object category of numbers

  • The prediction was partially confirmed as both number and letter peripheral cues (Experiments 1 and 2 respectively, constructed to contain overlapping features with the primary central task) elicited cuing effects

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The processing of sensory information relies on interacting mechanisms of sustained attention and attentional capture, both of which operate in space and on object features. It has been shown that this more reflexive aspect of attention is often dependent on the particular nature of environmental circumstances at hand Such factors may include for example, the role of stimulus saliency (Jonides and Yantis, 1988), the role of spatial location (Posner et al, 1980; LaBerge, 1981; Cave and Pashler, 1995; Lu and Dosher, 2000; Mathôt and Theeuwes, 2010a,b), as well as the object features. More recent evidence has shown that even attentional capture can at times be interrupted when an observer is undergoing a difficult and demanding task Where such exogenous, or stimulusdriven, mechanisms were previously thought to be automatic (Müller and Rabbitt, 1989), attentional orienting may be eliminated in a state of focused attention. Reconciling such dichotomies as the top-down and bottom-up views, it may be helpful to adopt a theoretical framework that can predict what dimension or mechanism will be most relevant at any given point in time, and under what type of circumstances

Methods
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