바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.25 No.3
Citation Share

The Effect of the Chance of a Distractor Capturing Attention on Distractor Interference

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2013, v.25 no.3, pp.359-382
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2013.25.3.007
(Washington University in St. Louis)

& (2013). The Effect of the Chance of a Distractor Capturing Attention on Distractor Interference. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 25(3), 359-382, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2013.25.3.007
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

It has been suggested that the perceptual load induced by varying display set size is confounded with the dilution among nontarget stimuli. A flanker compatibility task was conducted to examine the nature of dilution. In Experiments 1 and 2, a target letter was presented at fixation with three or six task-irrelevant flanking letters surrounding it. Distractor interference was modulated by the number of the distracting letters in Experiment 1 and the ratio of the number of the distracting letters to the total number of the flanking letters in Experiment 2. When seven different letters were presented as a target, distracting letters, and neutral letters in Experiment 3, the number of the distracting letters modulated distractor interference. These findings are inconsistent with Tsal and Benoni’s (2010) idea that dilution is due to perceptual interference in the preattentive processing stage, as well as Lavie’s (1995) perceptual load theory. We argue that distractor interference is modulated by the probability of a distractor capturing focused attention.

keywords
Dilution, perceptual load, attentional capture, distractor interference, 희석효과, 지각적 부하, 주의 획득, 방해효과

Reference

1.

Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2010). Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vision Research, 50 (13), 1292-1298.

2.

Biggs, A. T., & Gibson, B. S. (2010). Competition between color salience and perceptual load during visual selection can be biased by top-down set. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72 (1), 53-64.

3.

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.

4.

Brown, T. L., Roosgilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 21 (6), 1395- 1411.

5.

Cho, Y. S., Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32 (4), 826-839.

6.

Choi, J., Cho, Y., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Impaired color word processing at an unattended location: Evidence from a Stroop task combined with inhibition of return. Memory & Cognition, 37 (6), 935-944.

7.

Dark, V. J., Vochatzer, K. G., & VanVoorhis, B. A. (1996). Semantic and spatial components of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22 (1), 63-81.

8.

Durgin, F. H., Doyle, E., & Egan, L. (2008). Upper-left gaze bias reveals competing search strategies in a reverse Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 127 (2), 428-448.

9.

Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., & Fox, E. (2005). Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? Perception & Psychophysics, 67 (5), 876-885.

10.

Johnson, D. N., McGrath, A., & McNeil, C. (2002). Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychological Science, 13 (3), 284-287.

11.

Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading - Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9 (4), 497-509.

12.

Kim, H., Cho, Y. S., Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 70 (8), 1540-1551.

13.

Kyllingsbæk, S., Sy, J. L., & Giesbrecht, B. (2011). Understanding the allocation of attention when faced with varying perceptual load in partial report: A computational approach. Neuropsychologia, 49 (11), 1487-1497.

14.

Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21 (3), 451-468.

15.

Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8 (5), 395-398.

16.

Lavie, N., & Torralbo, A. (2010). Dilution: A theoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (6), 1657-1664.

17.

Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual-attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56 (2), 183-197.

18.

Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105 (2), 317-339.

19.

Mitterer, H., La Heij, W., & Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (2003). Stroop dilution but not word-processing dilution: Evidence for attention capture. Psychological Research, 67 (1), 30-42.

20.

Paquet, L., & Craig, G. L. (1997). Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task. Memory & Cognition, 25 (2), 182-189.

21.

Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2005). Stroop dilution revisited: Evidence for domain- specific, limited-capacity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31 (1), 3-13.

22.

Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95 (1), 15-48.

23.

Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010a). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (6), 1645-1656.

24.

Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010b). Much dilution little load in Lavie and Torralbo's (2010) response: A Reply. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (6), 1665-1668.

25.

Wilson, D. W., D. E., Muroi, M., & MacLeod, C. M. (2011). Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37 (2), 319-335.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy