바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.2
Citation Share

Attentional Capture as an Alternative view of Perceptual Load Theory and Early-Visual Crosstalk Account

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.2, pp.121-149
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.2.003
(Washington University in St. Louis)

& (2015). Attentional Capture as an Alternative view of Perceptual Load Theory and Early-Visual Crosstalk Account. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(2), 121-149, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.2.003
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The perceptual load theory (Lavie & Tsal, 1994) and the dilution account (Tsal & Benoni, 2010) have been proposed to explain the phenomenon that the degree of irrelevant information processing decreases as the relevant stimulus-set size increases. The present study investigated the nature of the set-size effect on processing of task-irrelevant information. Under high perceptual load with a single distractor, no congruency effect was replicated in the present study. However, importantly, the congruency effect increased as the number (ratio) of distractor increased (Experiments 1 & 2). In dilution condition (Experiment 3), a larger congruency effect was found when a conflict distractor was located at the task-relevant array than at a task-irrelevant peripheral position, which is consistent with previous findings. However, an additional presentation of a distracting letter did not produce a larger congruency effect. These results indicate that the perceptual load effect by increasing the number of task-relevant items is a result of a reduced probability of attentional capture by a conflicting distractor. Furthermore, this selective processing occurs at a focused attention stage which implies that early-visual crosstalk is not an alternative explanation.

keywords
Dilution, Perceptual load, Attentional capture, Conflict, Visual crosstalk, 희석, 지각적 부하, 주의 획득, 갈등, 시각 혼선

Reference

1.

Bahrami, B., Carmel, D., Walsh, V., Rees, G., & Lavie, N. (2008). Unconscious orientation processing depends on perceptual load. Journal of Vision, 8(3), 1-10.

2.

Bahrami, B., Lavie, N., & Rees, G. (2007). Attentional load modulates responses of human primary visual cortex to invisible stimuli. Current Biology, 17(6), 509-513.

3.

Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2009). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Vision, 9(8), 228.

4.

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

5.

Benoni, H., Zivony, A., & Tsal, Y. (2014). Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 785-792.

6.

Biggs, A., & Gibson, B. (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.

7.

Bishop, S. J., Jenkins, R., & Lawrence, A. D. (2007). Neural processing of fearful faces: effects of anxiety are gated by perceptual capacity limitations. Cerebral Cortex, 17(7), 1595-1603.

8.

Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review, 84(5), 472-484.

9.

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436.

10.

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). The selective nature of learning Perception and communication (pp. 244-267). Elmsford, NY, US: Pergamon Press.

11.

Brown, T. L., Roos-Gilbert, 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.

12.

Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition, 102(3), 321-340.

13.

Cosman, J., & Vecera, S. (2010). Attentional capture under high perceptual load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 815-820.

14.

Chen, Z., & Cave, K. R. (2013). Perceptual load vs. dilution: the roles of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 327.

15.

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.

16.

Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70(1), 80-90.

17.

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

18.

Estes, W. (1972). Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 12(3), 278-286.

19.

Estes, W. (1974). Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 16(1), 53-60.

20.

Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal. Psychological Science, 18(5), 377-381.

21.

Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(1), 73-83.

22.

Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2009). Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition, 111(3), 345-355.

23.

Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2011). Entirely irrelevant distractors can capture and captivate attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1064- 1070.

24.

Gibson, B. S., & Bryant, T. A. (2008). The identity intrusion effect: Attentional capture or perceptual load? Visual Cognition, 16(2-3), 182-199.

25.

He, C., & Chen, A. (2010). Interference from familiar natural distractors is not eliminated by high perceptual load. Psychological Research, 74(3), 268-276.

26.

Hoffman, J. (1979). A two-stage model of visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 25(4), 319-327.

27.

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.

28.

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

29.

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

30.

Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75-82.

31.

Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8(5), 395-396.

32.

Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1038-1052.

33.

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.

34.

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

35.

Macleod, C., & Hodder, S. L. (1998). Presenting two incongruent color words on a single Stroop trial does not alter Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 212-219.

36.

Marciano, H., & Yeshurun, Y. (2011). The effects of perceptual load in central and peripheral regions of the visual field. Visual Cognition, 19(3), 367-391.

37.

Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 247-279.

38.

Mitchell, D. G. V., Nakic, M., Fridberg, D., Kamel, N., Pine, D. S., & Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The impact of processing load on emotion. NeuroImage, 34(3), 1299-1309.

39.

Muggleton, N., Lamb, R., Walsh, V., & Lavie, N. (2008). Perceptual load modulates visual cortex excitability to magnetic stimulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100(1), 516-519.

40.

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

41.

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442.

42.

Roper, Z. J. J., Cosman, J. D., & Vecera, S. P. (2013). Perceptual load corresponds with factors known to influence visual search. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 39(5), 1340-1351.

43.

Sand, A., & Wiens, S. (2011). Processing of unattended, simple negative pictures resists perceptual load. NeuroReport, 22(7), 348-352.

44.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Gardner, G. T. (1972). Visual processing capacity and attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(1), 72-82.

45.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Geisler, W. S. (1973). Visual recognition in a theory of information processing Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium (pp. xi, 348). Oxford, England: V. H. Winston & Sons.

46.

Suh, J., & Cho, Y. (2013). The effect of the chance of a distractor capturing attention on distractor interference. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 25, 359-382.

47.

Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A., & Belopolsky, A. (2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(4), 697-702.

48.

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.

49.

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.

50.

Wilson, 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.

51.

Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(5), 156-161.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy