Delayed working memory consolidation during the attentional blink

Vogel, Edward K.; Luck, Steven J.

doi:10.3758/bf03196329

Cited by 214 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

217

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of the mask is crucial in obtaining a temporal lapse in spatial processing. This corroborates earlier findings that masking is key to obtaining attentional blinks for nonspatial properties such as letter identity and suggests that visual working memory is involved (Brehaut et al, 1999;Giesbrecht & Di Lollo, 1998;Vogel & Luck, 2002). It also offers further evidence against the argument that in Experiments 1-4, the RSVP task somehow affected the search task directly.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Olivers

Humphreys²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detection or discrimination of the second of 2 targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task is often temporarily impaired-a phenomenon termed the attentional blink. This study demonstrated that the attentional blink also affects localization performance. Spatial cues pointed out the possible target positions in a subsequent visual search display. When cues were presented inside an attentional blink (as induced by an RSVP task), the observers' capacity to use them was reduced. This effect was not due to attention being highly focused, to general task switching costs, or to complete unawareness of the cues. Instead, the blink induced a systematic localization bias toward the fovea, reflecting what appears to be spatial compression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Olivers

Humphreys²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies examined separately the AB and the PRP and in both cases, reported that the P3 component of the ERPs is delayed at short compared to long inter target lags (Dell'acqua et al, 2005;Ptito et al, 2008;Sergent et al, 2005;Sessa et al, 2007;Sigman and Dehaene, 2008;Vogel and Luck, 2002). Here, for the first time, we directly compared, in the same paradigm, blinked trials and PRP trials at the brain level.…”

Section: Central Processing In Dual-tasksmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Third, at the brain level, event-related potentials (ERPs) studies reveal that early sensory components are preserved during AB and PRP alike, and their latency is not affected by the inter target lag (Sergent et al, 2005;Sergent and Dehaene, 2004). Fourth, the P3 component is delayed when the second target is detected, as in the PRP (Ptito et al, 2008;Sergent et al, 2005;Vogel and Luck, 2002), and completely vanishes when the target is missed or blinked (Sergent et al, 2005;Sergent and Dehaene, 2004;Sigman and Dehaene, 2006). Nevertheless, these parallels between AB and PRP result from independent experiments using different tasks, participants and even laboratories, and hence they do not constitute a proof that the AB and the PRP are related phenomena sharing similar brain mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doing two things at once is difficult. When two tasks have to be performed within a short interval, the second is sharply delayed, an effect called the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP). Similarly, when two successive visual targets are briefly flashed, people may fail to detect the second target (Attentional Blink or AB). Although AB and PRP are typically studied in very different paradigms, a recent detailed neuromimetic model suggests that both might arise from the same serial stage during which stimuli gain access to consciousness and, as a result, can be arbitrarily routed to any other appropriate processor. Here, in agreement with this model, we demonstrate that AB and PRP can be obtained on alternate trials of the same cross-modal paradigm and result from limitations in the same brain mechanisms. We asked participants to respond as fast as possible to an auditory target T1 and then to a visual target T2 embedded in a series of distractors, while brain activity was recorded with magnetoencephalography (MEG). For identical stimuli, we observed a mixture of blinked trials, where T2 was entirely missed, and PRP trials, where T2 processing was delayed. MEG recordings showed that PRP and blinked trials underwent identical sensory processing in visual occipitotemporal cortices, even including the non-conscious separation of targets from distractors.However, late activations in frontal cortex (>350 ms), strongly influenced by the speed of task-1 execution, were delayed in PRP trials and absent in blinked trials. Our findings suggest that PRP and AB arise from similar cortical stages, can occur with the same exact stimuli, and are merely distinguished by trial-by-trial fluctuations in task processing.Central and sensory processing in dual-tasks 3

show abstract

“…However, the frequency-related P3 is broader (i.e., more extended in time) and larger than the N2pc. Furthermore, the latency differences can be somewhat larger (e.g., more than 40 ms), especially in dual-task studies (see Arnell et al, 2004;Dell'Acqua et al, 2005;Luck, 1998;Vogel & Luck, 2002).…”

Section: Simulations For the Frequency-related P3 Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is done by subtracting the ERP elicited by a frequent second-task target category from the ERP elicited by an infrequent second-task target category for each task overlap condition. The onset latency of the resulting ERP latency differences 269 frequency-related P3 can then be taken as a relatively pure measure of the time required to perceive and categorize the second-task target in different overlapping conditions, devoid of Task 1 contamination (see Arnell, Helion, Hurdelbrink, & Pasieka, 2004;Dell'Acqua, Jolicoeur, Vespignani, & Toffanin, 2005;Luck, 1998;Vogel & Luck, 2002). Thus, as for the N2pc, the frequency-related P3 is measured from a difference wave.…”

Section: Simulations For the Frequency-related P3 Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used computer simulations to evaluate different procedures for measuring changes in the onset latency of a representative range of event-related components (the auditory and visual N1, P3, N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 difference wave). These procedures included several techniques to determine onset latencies combined with approaches using both single-participant average waveforms and jackknife-subsample average waveforms. In general, the jackknife-based approach combined with the relative criterion technique or combined with the fractional area technique (J.C. Hansen & S.A. Hillyard, 1980; S.J. Luck, 2005) provided the most accurate method and the greatest statistical power, with no inflation of Type I error rate.Descriptors: ERP latency, Jackknife, N1, P3, N2pc, Frequency-related P3Research using event-related potentials (ERPs) often focuses on differences in amplitudes as well as differences in latencies of ERP components. However, for both measurements there are several scoring methods, and quite often researchers have to decide rather arbitrarily which method might be most appropriate. In this article we compare several methods for determining ERP latency differences. To evaluate the methods we ran computer simulations based on data of five ERP components: the visual N1, the auditory N1, the P3 (hereafter used to mean the P3b), the N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 component (infrequent minus frequent difference wave).These five components were chosen because they are very different and representative of a broad range of components, as is apparent from the following brief review of these components. The N1 components (visual, auditory) are relatively early components, strongly influenced by physical properties of the stimulus. They are characterized by a clear onset and a sharply increasing amplitude, but clearly reflect different underlying neural generators. In contrast, the P3 is a late component that is relatively insensitive to the physical properties of the stimulus (with the exception of tone intensity; see Covington & Polich, 1996), but is influenced by probabilities, expectations, and resource allocation (see Johnson, 1986). Quite often the P3 does not show a clear onset, and its peak latency is difficult to determine because the component has a wide temporal extension without a sharp peak. The N2pc and frequency-related P3, for their part, are measured from difference waves that are obtained by subtracting ERP waveforms computed at different electrode sites or at same electrode sites but in different experimental conditions. The N2pc is an index of the allocation of visualspatial attention and is isolated by subtracting the ERP at posterior electrode sites ipsilateral to an attended item from the ERP at the corresponding contralateral electrode site, whereas the frequency-related P3 is isolated by subtracting the ERP elicited by frequent targets from the ERP elicited by infrequent targets.For all components, researchers are often interested in estimating the latency differences a...

show abstract

Delayed working memory consolidation during the attentional blink

Cited by 214 publications

References 37 publications

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

Spatiotemporal Segregation in Visual Search: Evidence From Parietal Lesions.

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About