Targets In Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Research Articles

Relationships between attentional blink magnitude, RSVP target accuracy, and performance on other cognitive tasks

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately half a second of each other, performance on the second target (T2) suffers, relative to when the targets are presented further apart in time or when the first target (T1) can be ignored. This pattern of results is known as the attentional blink (AB). Typically, participants differ with respect to the magnitude of their AB and their overall target accuracy. Despite investigations as to what participant characteristics may influence AB performance (e.g., age, brain damage, or mood state), there has been no focused examination of whether individual differences in cognitive performance measures predict the magnitude of the AB or overall rapid serial visual presentation(RSVP) target accuracy. Our university studentparticipants performed single-target and dual-target RSVP tasks, as well as a selection of cognitive tasks that did not use RSVP presentations, with color, letter, digit, and object stimuli. Overall performance on each of the RSVP targets (T1, T2, and single target) was predicted by speeded manual and vocal identification times to isolated stimuli and by performance with other RSVP targets. However, the magnitude of the AB was predicted only by T1 accuracy, not by any other performance measures. The results suggest that individual differences in AB magnitude do not result from differences in effective RSVP target encoding and are not well explained by varied information-processing abilities.

Temporal binding errors are redistributed by the attentional blink.

When one searches for a target among nontargets appearing in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), one's errors in performance typically involve the misreporting of neighboring nontargets. Such illusory conjunctions or intrusion errors are distributed differently around the target, depending on task or stimulus variables. It is shown here that shifts in intrusion error patterns can be produced by the manipulation of attention alone. In a dual-task paradigm, the magnitude and distribution of intrusion errors changed systematically as a function of available attentional resources. Intrusion errors in RSVP tasks reflect internal capacity limitations for binding independent features. The present results support a two-stage model of RSVP target processing.