Distractor Suppression When Attention Fails: Behavioral Evidence for a Flexible Selective Attention Mechanism

Elliott, J. C.; Giesbrecht, Barry

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126203

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, note that this correlation may be spurious because these two indices share a variable (i.e., T2/T1 at Lag 4 in no-prime trials). Nonindependent variables such as AB recovery and T2 priming can be expected to show an average correlation of .50 (in case of equal variances), even in the complete absence of a true relationship (see Elliott & Giesbrecht, 2015). Moreover, Slagter and Georgopoulou (2013) did not observe a relationship between distractor inhibition and AB magnitude (i.e., T2/ T1 at Lag 10 − Lag 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

London

Slagter

2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Selection mechanisms that dynamically gate only relevant perceptual information for further processing and sustained representation in working memory are critical for goal-directed behavior. We examined whether this gating process can be modulated by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over left dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC)-a region known to play a key role in working memory and conscious access. Specifically, we examined the effects of tDCS on the magnitude of the so-called "attentional blink" (AB), a deficit in identifying the second of two targets presented in rapid succession. Thirtyfour participants performed a standard AB task before (baseline), during, and after 20 min of 1-mA anodal and cathodal tDCS in two separate sessions. On the basis of previous reports linking individual differences in AB magnitude to individual differences in DLPFC activity and on suggestions that effects of tDCS depend on baseline brain activity levels, we hypothesized that anodal tDCS over left DLPFC would modulate the magnitude of the AB as a function of individual baseline AB magnitude. Indeed, individual differences' analyses revealed that anodal tDCS decreased the AB in participants with a large baseline AB but increased the AB in participants with a small baseline AB. This effect was only observed during (but not after) stimulation, was not found for cathodal tDCS, and could not be explained by regression to the mean. Notably, the effects of tDCS were not apparent at the group level, highlighting the importance of taking individual variability in performance into account when evaluating the effectiveness of tDCS. These findings support the idea that left DLPFC plays a critical role in the AB and in conscious access more generally. They are also in line with the notion that there is an optimal level of prefrontal activity for cognitive function, with both too little and too much activity hurting performance. ■

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

London

Slagter

2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note, however, that this correlation may be spurious because these two indices share a variable (i.e., T2/T1 at Lag 4 in no-prime trials). Nonindependent variables such as AB recovery and T2 priming can be expected to show an average correlation of .50 (in case of equal variances), even in the complete absence of a true relationship (Archie, 1981; see also Elliott & Giesbrecht, 2015). Moreover, Slagter and Georgopoulou (2013) did not observe a relationship between distractor inhibition and AB magnitude (i.e., T2/T1 at Lag 10 -Lag 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Temporal Attention

London

Slagter

2021

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection mechanisms that dynamically gate only relevant perceptual information for further processing and sustained representation in working memory are critical for goal-directed behavior. We examined whether this gating process can be modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC)—a region known to play a key role in working memory and conscious access. Specifically, we examined the effects of tDCS on the magnitude of the “attentional blink” (AB), a deficit in identifying the second of two targets presented in rapid succession. Thirty-four participants performed an AB task before (baseline), during and after 20 min of 1-mA anodal and cathodal tDCS in two separate sessions. On the basis of previous reports linking individual differences in AB magnitude to individual differences in DLPFC activity and on the basis of suggestions that effects of tDCS depend on baseline brain activity levels, we hypothesized that anodal tDCS over lDLPFC would modulate the magnitude of the AB as a function of individual baseline AB magnitude. Behavioral results did not provide support for this hypothesis. At the group level, we also did not observe any significant effects of tDCS, and a Bayesian analysis revealed strong evidence that tDCS to lDLPFC did not affect AB performance. Together, these findings do not support the idea that there is an optimal level of prefrontal cortical excitability for cognitive function. More generally, they add to a growing body of work that challenges the idea that the effects of tDCS can be predicted from baseline levels of behavior.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, these individual differences reliably correlated with the AB magnitude (those with smaller ABs had negative priming) and T1 performance (those with high T1 accuracy had negative priming). The authors viewed attention as the causal factor of these individual differences, with differences in distractor inhibition during the blink causing priming differences (however, see Elliott & Giesbrecht, 2015 for a failure to replicate this correlation result and a computer simulation suggesting that the previously reported correlation may have been an artifact when using the same data twice). If this correlation exists, the perceptual wink model provides a qualitatively different account, with differences in perception as the causal factor: individuals with more rapid orthographic perception more easily perceive T1, more readily experience letter habituation (i.e., negative priming) and more rapidly recover the ability to detect the existence of a second target (i.e., revealed as a small AB magnitude).…”

Section: A Comparison With Other Priming-ab Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perceptual wink model of non-switching attentional blink tasks

Rusconi

Huber

2017

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attentional blink (AB) is a temporary deficit for a second target (T2) when that target appears after a first target (T1). Although sophisticated models have been developed to explain the substantial AB literature in isolation, the current study considers how the AB relates to perceptual dynamics more broadly. We show that the time-course of the AB is closely related to the time course of the transition from positive to negative repetition priming effects in perceptual identification. Many AB tasks involve a switch between a T1 defined in one manner and a T2 defined in a different manner. Other AB tasks are non-switching, with all targets belonging to the same well-known category (e.g., letter targets versus number distractors) or sharing the same perceptual feature. We propose that these non-switching AB tasks reflect perceptual habituation for the target-defining attribute; thus, a 'perceptual wink', with perception of one attribute (target identity) undisturbed while perception of another (target detection) is impaired. On this account, the immediate benefit following T1 (lag-1 sparing) reflects positive repetition priming and the subsequent deficit (the blink) reflects negative repetition priming for the realization that a target occurred. In developing the perceptual wink model, we extended the nROUSE model of perceptual priming to explain the results of two new experiments combining the AB and identity repetitions. This establishes important connections between non-switching AB tasks and perceptual dynamics.

show abstract

Distractor Suppression When Attention Fails: Behavioral Evidence for a Flexible Selective Attention Mechanism

Cited by 7 publications

References 43 publications

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

No Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Temporal Attention

The perceptual wink model of non-switching attentional blink tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About