Abstract
Input control theories of the attentional blink (AB) suggest that this deficit results from impaired attentional selection caused by the post-Target 1 (T1) distractor (Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007). Accordingly, these theories predict that there should be no AB when no distractors intervene between the targets. Contrary to these hypotheses, Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) observed an AB (T3 deficit) when three targets, from the same attentional set, were presented successively in a rapid stream of distractors, if subjects increased the resources they devoted to T1 processing. This result is consistent with resource depletion accounts of the AB. However, Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009) argue that Dux et al.’s results can be better explained by the relationship between T1 and T2, and by target discriminability effects, rather than by the relationship between T1 and T3. Here, we find that manipulating the resources subjects devote to T1, either exogenously (target perceptual salience) or endogenously (target task relevance), affects T3 performance, even when T2 and target discriminability differences are controlled for. These results support Dux et al.’s conclusion that T1 resource depletion underlies the AB.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 109–127.
Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J.-I., Ghorashi, S. M. S., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control? Psychological Research, 69, 191–200.
Dux, P. E., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2008). An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: Evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 809–813.
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of shortterm consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.
Maki, W. S., & Mebane, M. W. (2006). Attentional capture triggers an attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 125–131.
Martens, S., & Johnson, A. (2005). Timing attention: Cuing target onset interval attenuates the attentional blink. Memory & Cognition, 33, 234–240.
Olivers, C. N. L., Spalek, T. M., Kawahara, J.-I., & Di Lollo, V. (2009). The attentional blink: Increasing target salience provides no evidence for resource depletion. A commentary on Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 214–218.
Olivers, C. N. L., van der Stigchel, S., & Hulleman, J. (2007). Spreading the sparing: Against a limited-capacity account of the attentional blink. Psychological Research, 71, 126–139.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 849–860.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
NIMH Grant R01 MH70776 to R.M. supported this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dux, P.E., Asplund, C.L. & Marois, R. Both exogenous and endogenous target salience manipulations support resource depletion accounts of the attentional blink: A reply to Olivers, Spalek, Kawahara, and Di Lollo (2009). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 219–224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.219
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.219