Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:26:09.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Illusory Conjunctions in the Time Domain and the Resulting Time-Course of the Attentional Blink

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Juan Botella ,
Isabel Arend  and
Manuel Suero
Juan Botella*
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Madrid
Isabel Arend
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Madrid
Manuel Suero
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Madrid
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Botella. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Illusory conjunctions in the time domain are errors made in binding stimulus features presented In the same spatial position in Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) conditions. Botella, Barriopedro, and Suero (2001) devised a model to explain how the distribution of responses originating from stimuli around the target in the series is generated. They proposed two routes consisting of two sequential attempts to make a response. The second attempt (sophisticated guessing) is only employed if the first one (focal attention) fails in producing an integrated perception. This general outline enables specific predictions to be made and tested related to the efficiency of focal attention in generating responses in the first attempt. Participants had to report the single letter in an RSVP stream of letters that was presented in a previously specified color (first target, T1) and then report whether an X (second target, T2) was or was not presented. Performance on T2 showed the typical U-shaped function across the T1-T2 lag that reflects the attentional blink phenomenon. However, as was predicted by Botella, Barriopedro, and Suero's model, the time-course of the interference was shorter for trials with a correct response to T1 than for trials with a T1 error. Furthermore, longer time-courses of interference associated with pre-target and post-target errors to the first target were indistinguishable.

Se llaman conjunciones ilusorias en el dominio del tiempo a los errores que se producen al combinar rasgos estimulares presentados en la misma posición espacial en condiciones de Presentación Rápida de Series Visuales (PRSV). Botella, Barriopedro y Suero (2001) han formalizado un modelo para explicar cómo se genera la distribución de las respuestas de acuerdo con su posición de origen respecto a la posición del blanco o diana en la serie. Propusieron dos rutas que están constituidas por dos intentos secuenciales de alcanzar una respuesta. El segundo intento (una forma de adivinación sofisticada) sólo se utiliza si fracasa el primero (basado en la atención focal) en su intento por producir un percepto integrado. Esta estructura general permite derivar y poner a prueba predicciones concretas relativas al rendimiento de la atención focal en la generación de respuestas en el primer intento. Los participantes tienen que informar de cuál es la única letra de una serie de letras mostrada en PRSV que apareció en un color previamente especificado (primer blanco, T1) y después indicar si también se presentó una X (segundo blanco, T2). El rendimiento con T2 a través de los diferentes desfases T1-T2 mostró la típica función en forma de U que caracteriza el efecto de attentional blink (AB). Sin embargo, tal y como se predice desde el modelo de Botella, Barriopedro y Suero, el curso temporal de la interferencia fue más corto para los ensayos con una respuesta correcta a T1 que en los ensayos con errores. Además, esos cursos temporales de la interferencia más largos, asociados a los errores pre-blanco y post-blanco al primer blanco, fueron indistinguibles.

Keywords

illusory conjunctionsfeatures bindingattentionConjunciones ilusoriaspegado de rasgosatención
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , May 2004 , pp. 63 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Botella, J., Barriopedro, M. I., & Suero, M. (2001). A model of the formation of illusory conjunctions in the time domain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1452–1467.Google Scholar
Botella, J., & Eriksen, C. W. (1992). Filtering versus parallel processing in RSVP tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 334–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chun, M. M. (1997). Temporal binding errors are redistributed in the attentional blink. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1191–1199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple detection in RSVP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 109–127.Google Scholar
Isaak, M. I., Shapiro, K. L., & Martin, J. (1999). The attentional blink reflects retrieval competition among multiple RSVP items: Tests of the interference model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1774–1792.Google Scholar
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Concurrent response-selection demands modulate the Attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1097–1113.Google Scholar
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 138–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolicoeur, P., Dell'Acqua, R., & Crebolder, J. M. (2001). The attentional blink bottleneck. In Shapiro, K. (Ed.), The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing (pp. 82–99). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. H. (1971). Two studies of visual search for word targets with controlled rates of presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 85–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. P., Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. P. (1983). Combining attributes in rapid serial visual presentation tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in a RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation & Computers, 20, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiffert, A. E., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Low-level masking in the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1061–1073.Google Scholar
Shapiro, K. (2001). Temporal methods for studying attention: How did we get here and where are we going? In Shapiro, K. (Ed.), The limits of attention (pp. 1–19). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, K. L., Arnell, K. M., & Raymond, J. E. (1997). The attentional blink. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, K., Raymond, J. E., & Arnell, K. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in RSVP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 357–371.Google Scholar
Visser, T. A. W., Bischof, W. F., & Di Lollo, V. (1999). Attentional switching in spatial and non-spatial domains: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. L. (1996). The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed