Post-perceptual processing during the attentional blink is modulated by inter-trial task expectancies

Abstract

The selective processing of goal-relevant information depends on an attention system that can flexibly adapt to changing task demands and expectations. Evidence from visual search tasks indicates that the perceptual selectivity of attention increases when the bottom-up demands of the task increase and when the expectations about task demands engendered by trial history are violated. Evidence from studies of the attentional blink (AB), which measures the temporal dynamics of attention, also indicates that perceptual selectivity during the AB is increased if the bottom-up task demands are increased. The present work tested whether expectations about task demands engendered by trial history also modulate perceptual selectivity during the AB. Two experiments tested the extent to which inter-trial switches in task demands reduced post-perceptual processing of targets presented during the AB. Experiment 1 indexed post-perceptual processing using the event-related potential (ERP) technique to isolate the context sensitive N400 ERP component evoked by words presented during the AB. Experiment 2 indexed post-perceptual processing using behavioral performance to determine the extent to which personal names survive the AB. The results of both experiments revealed that both electrophysiological (Exp. 1) and behavioral (Exp. 2) indices of post-perceptual processing were attenuated when consecutive trials differed in terms of their perceptual demands. The results are consistent with the notion that the selectivity of attention during the AB is modulated not only by within-trial task demands, but also can be flexibly determined by trial-by-trial expectations.

Does Mindfulness Enhance Critical Thinking? Evidence for the Mediating Effects of Executive Functioning in the Relationship between Mindfulness and Critical Thinking

“…We followed Miyake et al (2000) in using these dependent measures for all but the switching tasks. While switch costs are often examined in terms of reaction time, it is not uncommon to examine accuracy costs in terms of the proportion of accurate responses on switch trials ( Sy et al, 2013 ). This method was chosen to avoid any potentially unique variance that could be attributed to reaction time and in light of evidence that reaction time switch costs do not reflect executive processes ( Logan and Bundesen, 2003 ).…”

Irrelevant reward and selection histories have different influences on task-relevant attentional selection

“…However, recognition is growing that these explanations do not sufficiently account for the range of influences on selective attention (Anderson, 2013;Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012). For example, task switching (see Monsell, 2003) and intertrial priming (e.g., Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010;Folk & Remington, 2008;Sy, Elliott, & Giesbrecht, 2013;Theeuwes, Kramer, & Belopolsky, 2004) influence selective attention, suggesting that selection history is an important factor when setting priorities for selective information processing (Awh et al, 2012). Other evidence demonstrating that prior experience influences attention has included studies reporting that the visual selection of rewarded and reward-associated targets is more efficient than the selection of targets not associated with a reward (e.g., Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009;Kiss, Driver, & Eimer, 2009;Raymond & O'Brien, 2009), and studies reporting that performance is impaired when previously rewarded distractors are present in a display (e.g., Anderson et al, 2011;Anderson & Yantis, 2012;Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009;.…”

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

“…Simultaneous masks may not only increase the noise accompanying the T1 sensory signal, but also influence the processing of subsequent information either directly as a result of the noise lingering in the system or indirectly as a result of the engagement of inhibitory processes meant to dampen the noise, thereby decreasing the processing of subsequent information. This account may also explain the effects of the incongruent flankers used in previous studies [ 23 – 25 , 27 ]. However, other mechanisms may also result in similar effects on the processing of the second target.…”