2017
DOI: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.07.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Perceptual episodes, temporal attention, and the role of cognitive control: Lessons from the attentional blink

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, one may wonder whether temporal crowding is related to the attentional blink phenomenon, in which the identification of a second target is impaired when the temporal interval between it and a first target is within the range of about 200-600 ms (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995;Raymond et al, 1992; for a recent review, see Snir & Yeshurun, 2017). However, the attentional blink phenomenon is fundamentally different from temporal crowding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, one may wonder whether temporal crowding is related to the attentional blink phenomenon, in which the identification of a second target is impaired when the temporal interval between it and a first target is within the range of about 200-600 ms (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995;Raymond et al, 1992; for a recent review, see Snir & Yeshurun, 2017). However, the attentional blink phenomenon is fundamentally different from temporal crowding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An attentional blink occurs when the processing of an initial target item in an RSVP stream consumes limited-capacity attentional resources, making them relatively unavailable for subsequent item processing (for reviews, see Dux & Marois, 2009;Snir & Yeshurun, 2017). In the current task, a single word was embedded in a stream of nonsense strings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) presents a stream of items one after another in the same spatial location at a rate of six to 20 items/sec. When participants must identify two successive targets in this stream, identification of the first target (T1) tends to be highly accurate; identification of the second target (T2), however, is generally impaired the more closely it follows the first (Broadbent & Broadbent, 1987; for reviews see Dux & Marois, 2009;Martens & Wyble, 2010;Snir & Yeshurun, 2017). The only exception is when T1 and T2 are presented in immediate succession such that T2 lags T1 by only one position in the RSVP stream (e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995;Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More precisely, the ability to identify and report a target stimulus (T2) is reduced when it appears with a short delay (typically 150-500 ms) after a prior target (T1). While numerous theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, a controversial debate is still ongoing (Dux and Marois, 2009; Snir and Yeshurun, 2017). An undisputed mechanistic account of the AB based on neurophysiological findings is yet missing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%