Executive control processes of working memory predict attentional blink magnitude over and above storage capacity

Abstract

When two masked, to-be-attended targets are presented within approximately half a second of each other, performance on the second target (T2) suffers, relative to when the targets are presented further apart in time or when the first target (T1) can be ignored. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). Colzato et al. (Psychon Bull Rev 14:1051-1057, 2007) used an individual differences approach to examine whether individual AB magnitude was predicted by individual differences in working memory (WM), using the operation span paradigm (OSPAN). They found that OSPAN score was inversely related to AB magnitude even when a fluid intelligence measure (Raven's SPM) was partialled out. However, it is not clear from this study whether it was the executive control aspect of working memory, the capacity aspect of short-term memory, (or both), that related to AB magnitude. In the present study we used a variety of WM measures that required varying degrees of executive control. OSPAN was negatively related to AB magnitude with Raven's SPM, reading comprehension, reading rate, and digit forward and backward partialled out. Backward and forward digit span did not predict AB magnitude. These results support the conclusion that a "working" executive component of WM predicts temporal limitations of selective attention beyond static STM capacity and general cognitive ability.

Personality predicts temporal attention costs in the attentional blink paradigm

“…In contrast, neuroticism, which is (Martens, Munneke, Smid, & Johnson, 2006). This hypothesis is also consistent with findings that individual differences in executive control of WM predict AB magnitude, but that WM capacity measures do not (Arnell et al, 2010;Arnell & Stubitz, in press;Colzato et al, 2007), and with findings that greater processing of irrelevant distractors both inside (Dux & Marois, 2008) and outside the RSVP stream (Arnell & Stubitz, in press;Martens & Valchev, 2009) is associated with larger ABs. Level of extraversion has been associated with executive control of WM performance.…”

“…Stable individual differences have been observed in the magnitude of the AB (McLaughlin, Shore, & Klein, 2001). Dispositional affect (MacLean et al, in press), WM operation span as measured by the OSPAN (Arnell, Stokes, MacLean, & Gicante, 2010;Colzato, Spapé, Pannebakker, & Hommel, 2007), and the ability to inhibit irrelevant distractor items both from inside the RSVP stream (Dux & Marois, 2008) and in a separate visual WM task (Arnell & Stubitz, in press) have been shown to predict AB magnitude. Overall, the results of these studies suggest that individual differences in cognitive control may underlie individual differences in the AB, at least in part.…”

Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control

“…This rate was used to avoid trading off between solving maths operations and memorizing words. The average score for the remaining participants was 36.14 (SD = 7.08), which is higher than the ranges reported in other studies but well below ceiling (e.g., Arnell, Stokes, & Maclean, 2010, M = 35.57; SD = 9.68; Unsworth & Engle, 2005, M = 13.25; SD = 6.58).…”

A conceptual and methodological framework for measuring and modulating the attentional blink

“…This would be the same as averaging response times across set sizes to get a measure of search efficiency in the visual search paradigm. Estimating the AB using overall T2 accuracy confounds the crucial aspect of the function of interest-the effect of the increasing temporal lag between two targets on target performance-with overall T2 performance ability, which evidence suggests are dissociable (Arnell, Howe, Joanisse, & Klein, 2006;Arnell, Stokes, MacLean, & Gicante, 2010;Colzato, Spapé, Pannebakker, & Hommel, 2007). For example, if Participant A has 20 %T2 accuracy at lag 3 and 80 %T2 accuracy at lag 8, he or she has 50 %T2 accuracy overall and a very large lag-dependent difference in T2 accuracy (60 %, if the AB is measured as a simple subtraction of lag 8 -lag 3 T2 accuracy).…”