Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load

Benoni, Hanna; Tsal, Yehoshua

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00522

Cited by 48 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead they suggest that neutral stimuli dilute the flanker effect and that attentional selection is determined by dilution rather than load. This is in line with Benoni and Tsal (2013) who present a critical review of perceptual load theory. They challenge the theory's assumptions and supporting evidence, and provide supportive arguments for the alternative dilution theory.…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

Early and late selection: Effects of load, dilution and salience

2014

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present issue focuses on the classic question of early vs. late selection and evaluates the current status of the perceptual load theory that has been offered as an intermediate solution.Several of the papers compare or contrast perceptual load with an alternative explanation-perceptual dilution. The first group of papers report evidence that is inconsistent with the perceptual load theory but is generally consistent with the dilution theory.Roper and Vecera (2013) report that flanker effects can be found under high perceptual load. Extending the duration of the display, and particularly of the relevant target, produces reliable congruency effects even under high perceptual load. The authors therefore argue that factors such as stimulus and encoding demands contribute to the load effect and that visual short term memory serves as an additional bottleneck when stimuli are briefly presented. Yeshurun and Marciano's (2013) findings also challenge the perceptual load theory. The authors found that task difficulty, as manipulated by degradation of visual information, did not affect attentional selection and flanker interference. This is in contrast to the claim that increasing sensory load increases distractor interference. Furthermore, the basic load effect was not replicated in all 4 experiments, and flanker effects were found even under high perceptual load. Mevorach et al. (2014) tested patients with unilateral neglect and found that contralesional neutral elements eliminated the interference presented by a distractor. The authors argue that given the notion that no attentional resources are allocated to the contralesional field, perceptual load should not be affected by presenting items in the contralesional field. Instead they suggest that neutral stimuli dilute the flanker effect and that attentional selection is determined by dilution rather than load. This is in line with Benoni and Tsal (2013) who present a critical review of perceptual load theory. They challenge the theory's assumptions and supporting evidence, and provide supportive arguments for the alternative dilution theory.Chen and Cave (2013) further studied the dilution effect. They present data that is consistent with dilution but not with perceptual load. However, they argue that the current conception of dilution is simplified. In particular the processing of neutral items is not only dependent on the number of stimuli present but also on complex interactions between top-down and bottomup processes. Thus, both distractor and neutral elements in a multi element display compete for the same limited attentional resources.In their opinion paper Linnell and Caparos (2013) argue that in accord with the perceptual load theory the spatial profile of attention was more focused when perceptual load was high and less focused when it was low. However in contrast to the theory this holds only when cognitive resources were available. Indeed, the authors emphasize the role of cognitive engagement in the task at hand and suggest that variations in perceptu...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 89%

Early and late selection: Effects of load, dilution and salience

2014

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An infrequently presented onset distractor leads to significant distraction processing while a frequently presented one does not (Cosman & Vecera, 2010), and both perceptual grouping and the salience of a target relative to the distractor and/or the other stimuli in a display affect the degree of distractor processing (Baylis & Driver, 1992;Biggs & Gibson, 2013;Biggs, Kreager, & Davoli, 2015;Eltiti, Wallas, & Fox, 2005;Yeh & Lin, 2013;Yeshurun & Marciano, 2013). These and other empirical findings Biggs & Gibson, 2010;Chen & Chan, 2007;Wilson et al, 2011;Yeh, Lee, Chen, & Chen, 2014 ), together with the conceptual and methodological issues raised by a number of researchers (see Benoni & Tsal, 2013;Giesbrecht, Sy, Bundesen, & Kyllingsbaek, 2014;and Murphy, Groeger, & Greene, 2016, for reviews), indicate that the simple principles of PLT do not fully capture the complex interactions among targets and nontargets in complex stimulus arrays. In this review we will focus primarily on behavioral studies that do not involve a secondary task.…”

Section: Perceptual Loadmentioning

confidence: 97%

Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom

Cave

Chen

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual selection is imperfect; whenever a complex array of objects is processed, representations of multiple objects are likely to be active simultaneously. A full account of attentional processing must explain how these representations affect one another and how they interact to produce a response. Evidence on these interactions comes from measures of distractor interference and from dilution of distractor effects by other nontargets. Based on these data, different principles have been proposed to help understand target-distractor interactions, including accounts based on perceptual load and on dilution among nontargets. We review evidence from a number of experiments, including some using Yantis and Jonides's (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601-621, 1984, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121-134, 1990) methods for preventing abrupt onsets, which can disrupt spatial attention. The results underscore spatial constraints on the allocation of attention to include targets and exclude distractors. Selection is most effective when a single region can be selected that includes all possible target locations and excludes possible distractor locations. This region can be expanded or contracted as needed for the task, as suggested by C. W. Eriksen and St. James's (Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225-240, 1986) zoom lens model. This attentional zoom setting is probably affected by a number of factors, including the number of nontargets, the similarity among stimulus elements, the discriminability of the possible targets, and the discrimination difficulty of a concurrent task. A narrower attentional zoom setting that excludes a distractor will prevent interference from that distractor. Interference from a distractor will be diluted by nontargets, but only if they are within the attentional zoom region.

show abstract

“…Though emerging neural explanations are promising and useful, in behavioral terms, perceptual load is more clearly defined by paradigms (e.g., set size manipulations or target/ distractor similarity) than by explicit, process-based definitions (Benoni & Tsal, 2013). What is high perceptual load?…”

Section: Criticisms Of and Alternatives To Load Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lavie (1997) also drew attention to research that had manipulated load with no change in set size-in which the display was identical across conditions but the complexity of the task changed between high-and low-load conditions (i.e., search for any red shape in low load, search for a red square in high load). Benoni and Tsal (2013). however, have also argued that such tasks fail to control the load on working memory, and as such, perceptual and cognitive load become confounded (Fournier, Herbert, & Farris, 2004).…”

Section: Dilutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, both the limits and potential of load theory are at once becoming clearer, allowing more concrete applied predictions to be made. The more recent, independent reviews available are critical reviews, focusing on particular theoretical or methodological flaws in load theory, rather than on the broader state of the research and potential future directions (e.g., Benoni & Tsal, 2013;Khetrapal, 2010). The purpose of the present review, then, is to supplement and expand upon previous reviews, with one eye on the applied future of the theory because that is, we feel, the crucial next step for load theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention allows us to ignore what is taskirrelevant and focus on what is task-relevant. The cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie this process are key topics of investigation in cognitive psychology. One of the more prominent theories of attention is perceptual load theory, which suggests that the efficiency of selective attention is dependent on both perceptual and cognitive load. It is now more than 20 years since the proposal of load theory, and it is a good time to evaluate the evidence in support of this influential model. The present article supplements and extends previous reviews (Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004, 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-148. doi:10.1177/ 0963721410370295, 2010 by examining more recent research in what appears to be a rapidly expanding area. The article comprises five parts, examining (1) evidence for the effects of perceptual load on attention, (2) cognitive load, (3) individual differences under load, (4) alternative theories and criticisms, and (5) the future of load theory. We argue that the key next step for load theory will be the application of the model to real-world tasks. The potential benefits of applied attention research are numerous, and there is tentative evidence that applied research would provide strong support for the theory itself, as well as real-world benefits related to activities in which attention is crucial, such as driving and education.Keywords Selective attention . Perception . Perceptual load . Load theory . Distraction . Visual attention Selective attention is the ability to focus on that which is important to the task at hand while ignoring or suppressing task-irrelevant information. A key question that has fuelled much debate and research in psychology is how, and crucially when, this irrelevant information is filtered out. For example, while reading this article the reader may be surrounded by many potential distractors, such as the noise of a fly buzzing around the room. Given the top-down goal of reading this article, how much information is available to you about the fly? Can the processing of irrelevant stimuli be reduced or even prevented by internal or external factors? The inability to ignore distractors is a common experience in daily life, and though it may at times have minor consequences, such as extending the length of time it takes to read an article, in other situations lapses of attention may have far more serious consequences (e.g., in healthcare situations, or while operating heavy machinery). Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995(Lavie, , 2005(Lavie, , 2010Lavie & Tsal, 1994) suggests that the success or failure of selective attention is dependent on the processing demands of the current task. That is, the level of perceptual load as well as any cognitive load will determine the efficiency of distractor rejection. This theory has been hugely influential over the last 20 years,

show abstract

Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load

Cited by 48 publications

References 84 publications

Early and late selection: Effects of load, dilution and salience

Early and late selection: Effects of load, dilution and salience

Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About