When a single abrupt onset occurs in a multielement visual display, it captures attention, possibly by generating an attentional interrupt that designates onsets as being of high priority. In 3 experiments, the mechanisms subserving attentional priority setting were investigated. Subjects searched for a prespecified target letter among multiple distractor letters, half of which had abrupt onsets and half of which did not. The target, when present, was equally often an onset element and a no-onset element. Several models for attentional priority, differing in how many onset elements have priority over no-onset elements, were assessed. The data support a model in which approximately 4 onset stimuli are processed before any no-onset stimuli are processed. Two attentional priority mechanisms are proposed: (a) queuing of a limited number of high-priority elements and (b) temporally modulated decay of attentional priority tags.

We tested the strong form of the perceptual-load hypothesis, which posits that the amount of perceptual load is the only factor determining whether attention can be effectively focused. Participants performed a visual search task under conditions of low and high load and with either a 100% valid spatial cue or no spatial cue. With no cue, participants showed evidence of processing to-be-ignored stimuli when perceptual load was low but not when it was high, consistent with the perceptual-load hypothesis. However with a 100% valid spatial cue, participants showed little evidence of processing to-be-ignored stimuli, even when perceptual load was low. These results suggest that although perceptual load may be an important factor in attentional selectivity, load alone is not sufficient to explain how and when selective attention is effective.

We describe a college student, A.H., with a developmental deficit in determining the location ojobjects from vision. The deficit is selective in that (a) localization from auditory or tactile information is intact; (b) A.H. reports the identity oj mislocalized objects accurately; (c) visual localization errors preserve certain parameters oj the target location; and (d) visual localization is severely impaired under certain stimulus conditions, but nearly intact under other conditions. These results bear on the representation and processing oj location information in the visual system, and also have implications for understanding developmental dyslexia.

Observers require less time to identify a visual target when its location is cued in advance than when it is not cued, and the magnitude of the improvement depends on the validity of the cue. According to J. Jonides's (1983) 2-process model, there exist 2 possible modes of attentional readiness: a focused-attention mode and a diffuse-attention mode. Observers are assumed to enter the focused-attention mode on a proportion of trials that matches the validity of the cue and to enter the diffuse-attention mode on the remaining trials. The present experiment tested and rejected the response time mixture prediction of the 2-process model. An instance of the class of 1-process models in which perceptual objects are sampled in parallel according to the validity of the cue was evaluated. A stochastic simulation of the model yielded results that paralleled those of the experiment.

This study explored whether benzodiazepines selectively affect aspects of attention and/or visual information processing, as they do memory. A cued visual-search paradigm was employed, using normal volunteers and a single dose of triazolam. This paradigm provided for a detailed examination of two aspects of visual attention and information processing: 1) controlled versus automatic attention allocation (via central and peripheral cues), and 2) the extent to which processing an item in a non-cued location affects performance (via cue-validity). Triazolam, compared to placebo, significantly increased response time, and Drug Condition interacted with Cue-Validity but not Cue-Type. Based on these data, we argue that triazolam does not affect attention allocation but does affect attentional disengagement and/or attention switching mechanisms.