2008
DOI: 10.3758/pp.70.5.896
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Object file continuity and the auditory attentional blink

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is evidence that earlier perceptual (N1, P2) components are relatively spared, although further studies using meaningful sounds may help clarify this issue. Our findings coupled with those from the visual modality are consistent with AB models suggesting a common underlying processing limitation on short‐term consolidation in visual and auditory attentional blink (e.g., Arnell & Jolicoeur, 1999; Shen & Mondor, 2006, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is evidence that earlier perceptual (N1, P2) components are relatively spared, although further studies using meaningful sounds may help clarify this issue. Our findings coupled with those from the visual modality are consistent with AB models suggesting a common underlying processing limitation on short‐term consolidation in visual and auditory attentional blink (e.g., Arnell & Jolicoeur, 1999; Shen & Mondor, 2006, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…This “attentional blink” (AB) persists for several hundred milliseconds (e.g., Broadbent & Broadbent, 1987; Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992) and provides a means for assessing the deployment of attention in the temporal domain. Although the AB has been studied primarily in the visual modality (e.g., Broadbent & Broadbent, 1987; Chun & Potter, 1995; Giesbrecht & Di Lollo, 1998; Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1998; Shapiro, Raymond, & Arnell, 1994), there is some evidence to suggest that AB can also occur in the auditory modality (e.g., Arnell & Jolicoeur, 1999; Duncan, Martens, & Ward, 1997; Mondor, 1998; Shen & Mondor, 2006, 2008; Soto‐Faraco & Spence, 2002; Tremblay, Vachon, & Jones, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Infant and adult objectÁfile research has primarily focused on visual perception with relatively few studies exploring nonvisual representations (but see Hauser, Dehaene, Dehaene-Lambertz, & Patalano, 2002;Kubovy & van Valkenburg, 2001;Murray et al, 2004;Shen & Mondor, 2008;ShinnCunningham, 2008). Much can be learned by examining processing in multiple modalities and between modalities.…”
Section: Evidence For Multimodal Integrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This form of masking is referred to as “energetic masking,” in contrast to “informational masking,” which is assumed to occur when sounds do not have acoustic overlap. Rather, informational masking is assumed to take place at later anatomical sites in the auditory system and to result from a variety of higher-level factors including perceptual grouping and attention (Durlach et al, 2003a; Kidd et al, 2007; Shinn-Cunningham, 2008). The notion of informational masking has generated interesting research that can inform perceptual mechanisms relevant to the current discussion.…”
Section: From Sounds To Conscious Percepts or Notmentioning
confidence: 99%