1992
DOI: 10.1123/jsep.21.1.70
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

External Distraction and Attentional Narrowing: Visual Search Evidence

Abstract: We examined distraction and attentional narrowing in a dual-task auto-racing simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to six groups: distraction control, distraction anxiety, relevant control, relevant anxiety, central control, and central anxiety. Those in central conditions performed a driving task; the other four groups identified peripheral lights in addition to driving. Irrelevant peripheral lights were included in distraction conditions. Participants in anxiety conditions were exposed to increasin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

8
84
1
4

Year Published

2002
2002
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
8
84
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, they suggest, when an individual experiences high-arousal negative emotion, sensory processing is reduced and fewer cognitive resources are made available for task completion (see Friedman and Förster (2010) for a review of research in this area). Janelle, Singer, and Williams (1999) support this view with findings from their simulator study. They found that high anxiety 'drivers' demonstrated visual tunnelling (a narrowing of their visual attention, measured by tracking eye movements) but paradoxically also showed a greater tendency to be distracted by irrelevant cues in peripheral vision than did non-anxious participants.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Conversely, they suggest, when an individual experiences high-arousal negative emotion, sensory processing is reduced and fewer cognitive resources are made available for task completion (see Friedman and Förster (2010) for a review of research in this area). Janelle, Singer, and Williams (1999) support this view with findings from their simulator study. They found that high anxiety 'drivers' demonstrated visual tunnelling (a narrowing of their visual attention, measured by tracking eye movements) but paradoxically also showed a greater tendency to be distracted by irrelevant cues in peripheral vision than did non-anxious participants.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Such results are consistent with the findings of Nunes and Recarte (2002) and Harbluk and Noy (2002) who both found that with increased CWL came a decrease in the number and range of visual fixations made, with a tendency to focus attention on the central visual field rather than the peripheral fields. In contrast to Janelle et al (1999) this investigation did not find scan patterns consistent with the notion that, in the face of a distractor, highly anxious individuals shift their attention entirely to the peripheral fields to take in information. In contrast, participants' scan patterns suggest that a small area in the central field was selected for most visual processing.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The theory assumes that increased anxiety disrupts the balance between the two attentional systems and leads to increased influences of the stimulusdriven attentional system at the expense of the goal-directed attentional system. Anxious individuals have been found to attend to threatrelated stimuli (Eysenck et al, 2007), showing that attention will first be allocated to detect the threat and then to identify a strategy on how to respond, leading to longer response times for the task at hand (Janelle, Singer, & Williams, 1999). As threat-related stimuli are processed first, the inhibition function of the goal-directed attentional system (usually guided by expectations, knowledge, and current goals of the anxious person) is less able to inhibit task irrelevant stimuli (Eysenck et al, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies on visual search behaviour under pressure corroborated this theory (Janelle, Singer, 1999;Williams, Elliott, 1999;Williams et al, 2002b;Wilson et al, 2006).…”
Section: Processing Efficiency Theorysupporting
confidence: 54%