Abstract

To understand our sensory environment, our perceptual system must employ selective attention; the ability to attend to target information while ignoring distracting information. In the uni–modal domain the main determinant of selective attention success is capacity limitation, where only when processing capacity is taxed by the target (high load; HL) is distraction eliminated (perceptual load theory; PLT). Conversely, data limits while also increasing task demands, do not benefit selective attention as these limits are often driven by sensory degradation (SD) such that placing additional resources towards the target is not beneficial. Investigations of PLT to the cross–modal domain have produced mixed results, and no study has yet directly contrasted the impact of capacity and data limits in the cross–modal domain. The present dissertation focused on examining the impact of Perceptual Load (PL) and SD on cross–modal selective attention, in addition to examining how these factors would interact with the attended modality and individual differences (ID) in attentional control. Experiment 1 used a go–no–go manipulation of PL to show that distractor effects were not reduced at HL compared to low load (LL) condition and instead displayed trends for increased distraction under HL regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 2 used the addition of noise to create SD, and found that distractor processing increased under SD, again regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 1 and 2 used a uni–modal measure of attentional control, and overall both studies did not find a consistent pattern of correlation with cross–modal selective attention, suggesting important differences between the two. Experiment 3 used a single manipulation to create HL and SD conditions in a single experiment, and also found that both HL and SD showed trends of increased distraction relative to LL conditions. Overall the current dissertation suggests that capacity limitations arise at the modality level, and so do not impact cross–modal selective attention. As such, the findings of the current dissertation suggest there is no difference between capacity and data limited conditions in the cross–modal domain. Results are interpreted within a cross–modal selective attention framework.

Highlights

  • Our daily sensory environment is complex, and more often than not provides information from multiple sources in multiple sensory modalities

  • Impact of perceptual load (PL) on cross–modal distractor processing PL manipulation check To ensure that the PL manipulation was successful, a 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on reaction times (RT) and error rates, collapsed across all trial types

  • Future research should continue to compare the impact of factors such as processing efficiency (PE), modality appropriateness, and individual differences in attentional control and how these interact with factors such as data and capacity limits

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Our daily sensory environment is complex, and more often than not provides information from multiple sources in multiple sensory modalities. Lavie claimed that PL effects are those in which HL conditions require additional processing due to additional stimuli that presented, or more difficult perceptual distinctions that need to be made on the target information (Cartwright–Finch & Lavie, 2007; Macdonald & Lavie, 2011) These specific factors cause capacity limits to be reached and reduce the influence of irrelevant stimuli. The genesis of Lavie’s distinction between PL effects and SD effects on selective attention comes from an early theory put forth by Norman and Bobrow (1975), in which the authors propose a difference in capacity and data limited processing According to this distinction, capacity limits are concerned with the amount of processing resources available for target processing, while data limits are concerned with the quality of the information provided by sensory signals. Abbreviations, additions, deletions and/or any other alterations shall be made only with prior written authorization of the author(s)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: 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.