Chapter 3: Attention PowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity University ©2004 Prentice Hall Cognition...

Chapter 3: Chapter 3: AttentionAttention

PowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity UniversityPowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity University

©2004 Prentice Hall ©2004 Prentice Hall

Cognition – 2/eCognition – 2/eDr. Daniel B. WillinghamDr. Daniel B. Willingham

© 2004 Prentice Hall© 2004 Prentice Hall 22

AttentionAttention• Definition: The mechanism for continued cognitive Definition: The mechanism for continued cognitive

processing. All sensory information receives some processing. All sensory information receives some cognitive processing; attention ensures continued cognitive processing; attention ensures continued cognitive processing.cognitive processing.

• Two Properties of AttentionTwo Properties of Attention• Attention is limited in some fashion. Cognitive Attention is limited in some fashion. Cognitive

processing cannot occur for all stimuli processing cannot occur for all stimuli simultaneouslysimultaneously

• Attention is selective - you can expend your mental Attention is selective - you can expend your mental energy on a cognitive process as you see fitenergy on a cognitive process as you see fit


In What Way Is Attention Limited?In What Way Is Attention Limited?

• Parallel PerformanceParallel Performance• Consistent Attention RequirementsConsistent Attention Requirements• Allocation of AttentionAllocation of Attention• Reduction inReduction in Attentional Attentional

Demands with Practice: Demands with Practice: Automaticity Automaticity


Parallel PerformanceParallel Performance Attention can be distributed to more that one task at a time - multiple Attention can be distributed to more that one task at a time - multiple

tasks can be done in paralleltasks can be done in parallel Tested with the Tested with the Dual Task ParadigmDual Task Paradigm using using continuous taskscontinuous tasks rather than rather than

discrete tasksdiscrete tasks to avoid switching from task to task to avoid switching from task to task

Dual task: Dual task: A method of examining attentional demands. The target task is A method of examining attentional demands. The target task is performed alone and in the presence of a secondary task; if the target task performed alone and in the presence of a secondary task; if the target task requires little or no attention, performance should not deteriorate when the requires little or no attention, performance should not deteriorate when the secondary task is added.secondary task is added.

Continuous task: Continuous task: A task in which there is no obvious beginning and ending to A task in which there is no obvious beginning and ending to each trial; there is a continuous stream of stimuli and responses (e.g., a pursuit each trial; there is a continuous stream of stimuli and responses (e.g., a pursuit tracking task). Ex. - touch typingtracking task). Ex. - touch typing

Discrete task: Discrete task: Each trial has a discrete beginning and ending (e.g., a simple Each trial has a discrete beginning and ending (e.g., a simple response time task). Ex. - simple reaction time to a lightresponse time task). Ex. - simple reaction time to a light

However, it is difficult even with dual task paradigms to guarantee parallel However, it is difficult even with dual task paradigms to guarantee parallel performance as compared with task switching - Broadbent (1982), Welford performance as compared with task switching - Broadbent (1982), Welford (1980), Salthouse (1984)(1980), Salthouse (1984)


Consistent Attention RequirementsConsistent Attention Requirements When performing multiple tasks, does the amount of attention assigned to When performing multiple tasks, does the amount of attention assigned to

each task remain constant? Probably not.each task remain constant? Probably not. Multiple Resource Theories: Multiple Resource Theories: Attention is thought to be composed of number Attention is thought to be composed of number

attentional pools, dedicated to a different type of task (Navon & Gopher, attentional pools, dedicated to a different type of task (Navon & Gopher, 1979; Norman & Bobrow, 1975)1979; Norman & Bobrow, 1975) One suggestion - pools separated on basis of sense modality - Navon and Gopher (1979)’s One suggestion - pools separated on basis of sense modality - Navon and Gopher (1979)’s

analysis of Brooks (1968) simultaneous spatial and vocal tasks. Same modality task analysis of Brooks (1968) simultaneous spatial and vocal tasks. Same modality task interfere more than cross modality.interfere more than cross modality.

Not supported by Driver and Spence (1994) as seen in Fig. 3.4 Audition and vision not Not supported by Driver and Spence (1994) as seen in Fig. 3.4 Audition and vision not completely separate completely separate

Wickens (1984, 1992) - pools of attention based on dimensions of taskWickens (1984, 1992) - pools of attention based on dimensions of task• Perceiving the stimulus/ selecting the responsePerceiving the stimulus/ selecting the response• Verbal or spatial processing usedVerbal or spatial processing used• Modalities of input/outputModalities of input/output

While appealing multiple resource pools have been difficult to specify in a usual While appealing multiple resource pools have been difficult to specify in a usual predictive manner. It is not clear how many pools exist or how they are related to tasks - predictive manner. It is not clear how many pools exist or how they are related to tasks - Allport, 1989; Luck and Vecrea, 2002.Allport, 1989; Luck and Vecrea, 2002.


Allocation of AttentionAllocation of Attention

Psychologist assume people can allocate more or less Psychologist assume people can allocate more or less attention to a task according to their goals - Example: attention to a task according to their goals - Example: when driving becomes difficulty you stop talking to your when driving becomes difficulty you stop talking to your friend.friend.

Experimental test - Sperling and Melchner (1978)Experimental test - Sperling and Melchner (1978) Subjects view inner set of four letters surrounded by 16 lettersSubjects view inner set of four letters surrounded by 16 letters Arrays flashed on computer screen, containing two digits that have Arrays flashed on computer screen, containing two digits that have

to be reported as to identity and locationto be reported as to identity and location Subjects told to allocate 90% of attention to one array or the otherSubjects told to allocate 90% of attention to one array or the other As seen in Figure 3.3, when subjects attend to an array, they get As seen in Figure 3.3, when subjects attend to an array, they get

most of the digits correctmost of the digits correct Attention allocation seems to be demonstratedAttention allocation seems to be demonstrated


Reduction in Attentional DemandsReduction in Attentional Demands with Practice: Automaticity with Practice: Automaticity

Automatic process: A process that takes few or no attentional resources and Automatic process: A process that takes few or no attentional resources and that happens without intention, given the right set of stimuli in the that happens without intention, given the right set of stimuli in the environment. For ex.: Some aspects of driving a car.environment. For ex.: Some aspects of driving a car.

Two characteristics of automaticity:Two characteristics of automaticity: Requires little or no attentionRequires little or no attention Happens without intentionHappens without intention

Automaticity and AttentionAutomaticity and Attention Schneider and Shiffrin (1977)Schneider and Shiffrin (1977)

• Search for targets with consistent or inconsistent distractorsSearch for targets with consistent or inconsistent distractors• Consistent distractors led to Consistent distractors led to pop-outpop-out of targets. Indicates search is automatic. of targets. Indicates search is automatic.• When targets was selected from same set on each trial, automaticity developed over many When targets was selected from same set on each trial, automaticity developed over many

trials as seen in Fig. 3.6trials as seen in Fig. 3.6 Exact mechanism of the development of automaticity is under debate - Anderson, Exact mechanism of the development of automaticity is under debate - Anderson,

1983; Newell and Rosenbaum, 1981; Willingham, 1998.1983; Newell and Rosenbaum, 1981; Willingham, 1998. Logan (1988, 2000) suggests automaticity related to increase in use of memory in Logan (1988, 2000) suggests automaticity related to increase in use of memory in

task.task.


Automaticity - ContinuedAutomaticity - Continued Automaticity and InattentionAutomaticity and Inattention

Automatic processes can happen beyond our control but one must be cautious in Automatic processes can happen beyond our control but one must be cautious in interpretationinterpretation

Two Examples:Two Examples:

• Stroop test -- Try to say the color of each word - not the word itself.Stroop test -- Try to say the color of each word - not the word itself. Interfering Interfering NoninterferingNoninterfering

• Suggests reading is automaticSuggests reading is automatic

• Flanker Effect (task) - Stimuli (usually words) that appear to the sides of a target and Flanker Effect (task) - Stimuli (usually words) that appear to the sides of a target and that participants are to ignore, affect behavior.that participants are to ignore, affect behavior.

Dallas and Merikle (1976) - reading a target word faster when flankers semantically relatedDallas and Merikle (1976) - reading a target word faster when flankers semantically related Shaffer & Laberge (1979) - categorization faster with related flankersShaffer & Laberge (1979) - categorization faster with related flankers

We still must consider what elicits automatic response. When walking and you see a red We still must consider what elicits automatic response. When walking and you see a red light - you don’t make a braking movement with your foot.light - you don’t make a braking movement with your foot.

REDRED GREENGREEN

GREENGREEN REDRED

YELLOWYELLOW BLUEBLUE

BLUEBLUE YELLOWYELLOW


What is the Fate of Sensory Stimuli What is the Fate of Sensory Stimuli that Are Not Selected to Receive that Are Not Selected to Receive

Attention?Attention?

• Early Filter TheoriesEarly Filter Theories• Later Filter TheoriesLater Filter Theories• Movable FilterMovable Filter• What is SelectedWhat is Selected??• How Does Selection Operate?How Does Selection Operate?


Early Filter TheoriesEarly Filter Theories First studies - Cherry (1953) using dichotic listening and shadowing tasksFirst studies - Cherry (1953) using dichotic listening and shadowing tasks

Participants listen to material on headphones, and each earpiece plays a different message (dichotic Participants listen to material on headphones, and each earpiece plays a different message (dichotic listening). They attend to one message and must listening). They attend to one message and must shadowshadow that message. Shadowing means repeating that message. Shadowing means repeating the attended message aloud as they hear it. Task used to study how much the unattended material is the attended message aloud as they hear it. Task used to study how much the unattended material is processedprocessed

Participants didn’t notice:Participants didn’t notice:• If the unattended message switched languagesIf the unattended message switched languages• If the unattended message was played backwardsIf the unattended message was played backwards

Participants did notice:Participants did notice:• If the unattended message became a pure toneIf the unattended message became a pure tone• If the unattended message switched genderIf the unattended message switched gender• If the unattended message was repeated 35 times (Moray, 1959)If the unattended message was repeated 35 times (Moray, 1959)

Cherry concluded that the unattended message was not analyzed for meaning, only for physical Cherry concluded that the unattended message was not analyzed for meaning, only for physical characteristics.characteristics.

Broadbent (1958) - One of the first Broadbent (1958) - One of the first Early Attentional Filter ModelsEarly Attentional Filter Models Information first enters very brief sensory storeInformation first enters very brief sensory store Filter occurs after this storeFilter occurs after this store Small portion of information sent to the next stage of primary memorySmall portion of information sent to the next stage of primary memory Primary memory: awareness and assignment of meaning Primary memory: awareness and assignment of meaning


Late Filter TheoriesLate Filter Theories Problem with Broadbent and Cherry’s Proposals - Meaning has been found to be processed Problem with Broadbent and Cherry’s Proposals - Meaning has been found to be processed

in the unattended messagein the unattended message Moray (1959) and Wood and Cowan (1995) found subjects detected their own names in Moray (1959) and Wood and Cowan (1995) found subjects detected their own names in

the unattended ear.the unattended ear. Treisman (1960) found that shadowing switched ears if the semantic context of the Treisman (1960) found that shadowing switched ears if the semantic context of the

attended message switched to the unattended earattended message switched to the unattended ear Treisman proposed the filter is sensitive to context and certain important words (like Treisman proposed the filter is sensitive to context and certain important words (like

FIRE!) will always be considered contextually relevant and pass through the filter. FIRE!) will always be considered contextually relevant and pass through the filter. Led to the development of Led to the development of Late Filter Theories (Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963; Norman, 1968)Late Filter Theories (Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963; Norman, 1968)

Late Filter Theories: Attention acts as a filter late in the processing stream. All sensory stimuli are Late Filter Theories: Attention acts as a filter late in the processing stream. All sensory stimuli are analyzed for their physical characteristics and meaning, but only those that are attended to enter analyzed for their physical characteristics and meaning, but only those that are attended to enter awareness.awareness. Theories supported by experiments Theories supported by experiments using indirect measuresusing indirect measures such as seeing if performance on a task such as seeing if performance on a task

is influenced by unattended messages.is influenced by unattended messages. Example: Corten & Wood (1972) conditioned GSR to an electrical shock paired with a specific Example: Corten & Wood (1972) conditioned GSR to an electrical shock paired with a specific

word. Subjects demonstrated the GSR responses to the word even when presented in the word. Subjects demonstrated the GSR responses to the word even when presented in the unattended ear and the subjects had little conscious knowledge of having heard it.unattended ear and the subjects had little conscious knowledge of having heard it.


Late Filter Theories - ContinuedLate Filter Theories - Continued

Example 1: Corten & Wood (1972) conditioned GSR to an electrical Example 1: Corten & Wood (1972) conditioned GSR to an electrical

shock paired with a specific word. Subjects demonstrated the GSR shock paired with a specific word. Subjects demonstrated the GSR

responses to the word even when presented in the unattended ear and the responses to the word even when presented in the unattended ear and the

subjects had little conscious knowledge of having heard it. Some failures to subjects had little conscious knowledge of having heard it. Some failures to

replicate (Wardlaw & Kroll, 1976) but was replicated by Dawson and replicate (Wardlaw & Kroll, 1976) but was replicated by Dawson and

Schell (1982) but effect was not as robust.Schell (1982) but effect was not as robust.

Example 2: Eich (1984) – words in the unattended ear disambiguated the Example 2: Eich (1984) – words in the unattended ear disambiguated the

meaning of word homophones in the attended ear (ex. attend to meaning of word homophones in the attended ear (ex. attend to fair/farefair/fare

and taxi is in the unattended ear). On testing, subjects write and taxi is in the unattended ear). On testing, subjects write farefare. Wood, . Wood,

et al (1997) suggests result might be due to switching of attention from et al (1997) suggests result might be due to switching of attention from

channel to channel rather than a late filter.channel to channel rather than a late filter.


Movable Filter TheoriesMovable Filter Theories Movable filter model:Movable filter model:

An attentional model where the filter can be chosen to be An attentional model where the filter can be chosen to be early or late in the processing stream depending on needs early or late in the processing stream depending on needs (Posner & Snyder, 1975)(Posner & Snyder, 1975)

• Unattended stimuli analyzed for physical characteristicsUnattended stimuli analyzed for physical characteristics• Choose to allocate attention to some material or allocate attention Choose to allocate attention to some material or allocate attention

mostly to the material and switch periodically to the othermostly to the material and switch periodically to the other

Supporting ExperimentsSupporting Experiments• Johnston & Heinz (1978) – shadowing on a semantic level interferes Johnston & Heinz (1978) – shadowing on a semantic level interferes

more than shadowing on a physical level with a secondary task. more than shadowing on a physical level with a secondary task. Indicates differential allocation of attentional resourcesIndicates differential allocation of attentional resources

• Koelsch and Tervaniemi (1999) – amount of processing may be Koelsch and Tervaniemi (1999) – amount of processing may be affected by training, trained musicians demonstrated specific ERPs affected by training, trained musicians demonstrated specific ERPs to unattended musical stimuli that were technically discordant.to unattended musical stimuli that were technically discordant.


What Is Selected?What Is Selected? Attention seen as a spotlight before early ’80s (Norman, 1968; Posner et al, 1980) Attention seen as a spotlight before early ’80s (Norman, 1968; Posner et al, 1980)

– Attention selected spatial locations– Attention selected spatial locations Today – attention thought to select objects and Today – attention thought to select objects and notnot locations locations Experimental Evidence for Object SelectionExperimental Evidence for Object Selection

If attention was spotlight, then it should take a longer time to move attention over a If attention was spotlight, then it should take a longer time to move attention over a greater distance - greater distance - NOTNOT confirmed by Kwak et al. (1991) as seen in Fig. 3.8 in a same/different task with confirmed by Kwak et al. (1991) as seen in Fig. 3.8 in a same/different task with targets at varying distancestargets at varying distances

If attention was a beam, then as it swept from location to location it might be caught by If attention was a beam, then as it swept from location to location it might be caught by an intervening object –an intervening object –NOTNOT confirmed by Sperling & Weichselgartner (1995) in task with stimuli appearing confirmed by Sperling & Weichselgartner (1995) in task with stimuli appearing between fixated items and attended items. The in-between stimuli did not draw between fixated items and attended items. The in-between stimuli did not draw attention as they would if caught in a passing attentional beamattention as they would if caught in a passing attentional beam

Neisser & Becklen (1975) – attention can be successfully allocated to one of two visually Neisser & Becklen (1975) – attention can be successfully allocated to one of two visually superimposed video streams (two different games). Difficult to explain if attentional superimposed video streams (two different games). Difficult to explain if attentional allocation is spatial in nature.allocation is spatial in nature.

Baylis and Driver (1993) – more difficult to judge distances between points when they Baylis and Driver (1993) – more difficult to judge distances between points when they are from different objects rather than the same object (as seen in Fig 3.9). Argues for are from different objects rather than the same object (as seen in Fig 3.9). Argues for object based attention.object based attention.

Which vertex is higher? Examine theWhich vertex is higher? Examine thewhite parts or black parts of each illustration.white parts or black parts of each illustration.


What Is Selected? - ContinuedWhat Is Selected? - Continued Neural Evidence – O’Craven et al. (1999)Neural Evidence – O’Craven et al. (1999)

FMRI usedFMRI used Subjects viewed semitransparent face superimposed over a house, with Subjects viewed semitransparent face superimposed over a house, with

one stimulus movingone stimulus moving Subjects had to attend to house, face or motionSubjects had to attend to house, face or motion Activation was studied for specific cortical regions for separate stimulus Activation was studied for specific cortical regions for separate stimulus

attributes (face, place, motion)attributes (face, place, motion) Only the attended characteristic had its locus activated – arguing against Only the attended characteristic had its locus activated – arguing against

“spotlight” or area view of attention“spotlight” or area view of attention

How Does Selection How Does Selection Operate?Operate?

Treisman & Gelade (1980)Treisman & Gelade (1980)Stimulus Arrays and Search Stimulus Arrays and Search

ExamplesExamples


How Does Selection Operate? - ContinuedHow Does Selection Operate? - Continued• Object Selection most studies by visual search – please see the Object Selection most studies by visual search – please see the

illustration on slide #16 - Treisman & Gelade (1980)illustration on slide #16 - Treisman & Gelade (1980)• Two types of searchesTwo types of searches

Disjunctive: In a visual search task, the target differs from distractors on Disjunctive: In a visual search task, the target differs from distractors on just 1 feature (e.g., target is larger than distractors or target is only just 1 feature (e.g., target is larger than distractors or target is only stimulus that has a horizontal line in it). stimulus that has a horizontal line in it).

Conjunctive: In a visual search task, target differs from distractors on two Conjunctive: In a visual search task, target differs from distractors on two features, for example, the target is large and red and although some of the features, for example, the target is large and red and although some of the distractors are large and some are red, none of the distractors are both distractors are large and some are red, none of the distractors are both large and red. It requires a conjunction of two features (largeness and large and red. It requires a conjunction of two features (largeness and redness) to identify the target. redness) to identify the target.

On the illustration on slide #16, the left and middle are disjunctive, the right On the illustration on slide #16, the left and middle are disjunctive, the right is conjunctiveis conjunctive

Disjunctive searches are parallel in nature – all items at one timeDisjunctive searches are parallel in nature – all items at one time Conjunctive searches are serial – one item at a timeConjunctive searches are serial – one item at a time


How Does Selection Operate? - ContinuedHow Does Selection Operate? - Continued• Treisman and Gelade (1980)Treisman and Gelade (1980)

Perceptual system organized into feature mapsPerceptual system organized into feature maps Map contains location info for one feature (e.g. color, texture, etc.)Map contains location info for one feature (e.g. color, texture, etc.) Contents of maps loaded Contents of maps loaded preattentivelypreattentively Conjunctive searches need to access two or more mapsConjunctive searches need to access two or more maps Attention conjoins the contents of maps togetherAttention conjoins the contents of maps together

• Shih and Sperling (1966)Shih and Sperling (1966)• Attention drawn to correct stimulus rather than filtering out othersAttention drawn to correct stimulus rather than filtering out others

• Subjects had to find digit among letters. Telling them that the target Subjects had to find digit among letters. Telling them that the target would be in a slide with all large letters didn’t help. would be in a slide with all large letters didn’t help.

• Telling them that it would be the only small target among large Telling them that it would be the only small target among large characters didcharacters did

• Conclusion: Critical feature can draw attention but it cannot filter out Conclusion: Critical feature can draw attention but it cannot filter out incorrect stimuli.incorrect stimuli.


Why Does Selection Fail?Why Does Selection Fail?

• Assumed Order of Sensory ProcessingAssumed Order of Sensory Processing1.1. Processing Physical Characteristics Processing Physical Characteristics ↓↓

2.2. Processing SemanticsProcessing Semantics ↓↓3.3. AwarenessAwareness

• Early Filters – located right after sensory processingEarly Filters – located right after sensory processing• Late Filters – located right after semantic processingLate Filters – located right after semantic processing

• Properties of Attention that Cause Selection FailureProperties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure• Interaction of Attention with other Components of Interaction of Attention with other Components of

CognitionCognition


Properties of Attention that Cause Selection FailureProperties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure

Inhibition of Return: Inhibition of Return: If attention focuses on an object and then moves to If attention focuses on an object and then moves to

another object, it is difficult to return attention to that another object, it is difficult to return attention to that object for several seconds. object for several seconds.

First described by Posner (1978; Posner and Cohen, First described by Posner (1978; Posner and Cohen, 1984) – warning signal interferes with response to 1984) – warning signal interferes with response to target at same locationtarget at same location

Tipper, et al. (1991) – Inhibition of Return based on Tipper, et al. (1991) – Inhibition of Return based on objects and not locationobjects and not location

Theorized that IOR makes search more efficient as Theorized that IOR makes search more efficient as there would be a bias not to return to an already there would be a bias not to return to an already inspected iteminspected item


Properties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure Properties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure - Continued- Continued

Ironic Processes of Mental Control: Ironic Processes of Mental Control: Attending to something you don’t want to (Wegner, et Attending to something you don’t want to (Wegner, et

al. 1987)al. 1987)

o Two processes of mental controlTwo processes of mental control Operating process – seeks mental contents consistent with Operating process – seeks mental contents consistent with

what you want to think aboutwhat you want to think about Monitoring process – searches for processes that are Monitoring process – searches for processes that are

inconsistentinconsistent

o Operating process demands attention, Monitoring Operating process demands attention, Monitoring does notdoes not

o If resources are scare, the Operating process cannot If resources are scare, the Operating process cannot bring consistent contents to awareness and the bring consistent contents to awareness and the Monitoring processes brings inconsistent thoughts to Monitoring processes brings inconsistent thoughts to alert the system that they are present.alert the system that they are present.


Properties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure Properties of Attention that Cause Selection Failure - Continued- Continued

Maintaining Attention: VigilanceMaintaining Attention: Vigilance The ability to maintain attention to a task in which The ability to maintain attention to a task in which

stimuli appear infrequentlystimuli appear infrequently Can be analyzed in terms of Signal Detection Theory’s Can be analyzed in terms of Signal Detection Theory’s

two factorstwo factors• Sensitivity – absolute ability to detectSensitivity – absolute ability to detect• Bias – whether you use a liberal or conservative criterion for Bias – whether you use a liberal or conservative criterion for

reporting a detectionreporting a detection• Sensitivity decreases can be due to boredom, habituation, Sensitivity decreases can be due to boredom, habituation,

decline in motivationdecline in motivation• Sensitivity declines also depend on task – Parasuraman and Sensitivity declines also depend on task – Parasuraman and

Davies suggest sensitivity drops only for tasks with high event Davies suggest sensitivity drops only for tasks with high event ratesrates

• Koelega, et al. (1989) suggests sensitivity drops for sensory task Koelega, et al. (1989) suggests sensitivity drops for sensory task but is stable for cognitive tasksbut is stable for cognitive tasks

• See, et al. (1995) – with sensory tasks, sensitivity gets worse for See, et al. (1995) – with sensory tasks, sensitivity gets worse for simultaneous tasks and better for successive task, vice versa for simultaneous tasks and better for successive task, vice versa for cognitive taskscognitive tasks


Interaction of Attention with other Components of Interaction of Attention with other Components of CognitionCognition

Structural Explanation – Interference between two task is Structural Explanation – Interference between two task is caused by competition for mental structures, not caused by competition for mental structures, not attentional resourcesattentional resources

Two effects of interestTwo effects of interest Psychological Refractory Period (Welford, 1952; Pasher, 1998):Psychological Refractory Period (Welford, 1952; Pasher, 1998):

A period of time after one response is executed during which a A period of time after one response is executed during which a second response cannot be selected. Reflects a bottleneck in second response cannot be selected. Reflects a bottleneck in response selection as seen in Figure 3.12response selection as seen in Figure 3.12

Attentional Blink: In a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) as Attentional Blink: In a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) as seen in Fig. 3.13, observers have trouble identifying the second seen in Fig. 3.13, observers have trouble identifying the second target if it appears anywhere between 100 to 600 ms after the first target if it appears anywhere between 100 to 600 ms after the first target. Seems to represent a central bottleneck but not one of target. Seems to represent a central bottleneck but not one of attentionattention


Do regions of the brain or processes differ when a task Do regions of the brain or processes differ when a task

becomes automatic?becomes automatic?

Jansma, et al. (2001) – with a working memory task found no Jansma, et al. (2001) – with a working memory task found no difference in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, right superior difference in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, right superior frontal cortex and supplementary motor cortexfrontal cortex and supplementary motor cortex

Jueptner et al. (1997) with a sequenced motor task found:Jueptner et al. (1997) with a sequenced motor task found: Early learning associated with dorsal prefrontal cortex and anterior Early learning associated with dorsal prefrontal cortex and anterior

cingulate cortex cingulate cortex Automatic performance with posterior parietal cortexAutomatic performance with posterior parietal cortex Thinking about movements activated dorsal prefrontal and anterior Thinking about movements activated dorsal prefrontal and anterior

cingulate corticescingulate cortices

There may be more than one brain mechanism for There may be more than one brain mechanism for automaticity.automaticity.

Automaticity and the BrainAutomaticity and the Brain

Chapter 3: Attention PowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity University ©2004 Prentice Hall Cognition...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 3: Attention PowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity University ©2004 Prentice Hall Cognition...