Understanding the allocation of attention when faced with varying perceptual load in partial report: A computational approach

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1487-1497

  Kyllingsbæk, Søren ^a,b   Sy, Jocelyn L ^a   Giesbrecht, Barry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Modeling; Visual attention; Visual short term memory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORETICAL STUDY; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL MEMORY; WORKING MEMORY;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; FEMALE; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79955801601     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.039     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Benoni H., Tsal Y. Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vision Research 2010, 50:1292-1298. 10.1016/j.visres.2010.04.018.
2. Broadbent D.E. Perception and communication 1958, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review 1990, 97:523-547.
4. Bundesen C. A computational theory of visual attention. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1998, 353:1271-1281.
5. Bundesen C., Habekost T. Principles of visual attention: Linking mind and brain 2008, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
6. Bundesen C., Habekost T., Kyllingsbæk S. A neural theory of visual attention. Bridging cognition and neurophysiology. Psychological Review 2005, 112:291-328.
7. Cherry E.C. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1953, 25:975-979.
8. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:87-114. discussion 114-185.
9. Deutsch J.A., Deutsch D. Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review 1963, 70:80-90.
10. Eltiti S., Wallace D., Fox E. Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor saliency?. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:876-885.
11. Finke K., Bublak P., Krummenacher J., Kyllingsbæk S., Müller H.J., Schneider W.X. Usability of a theory of visual attention (TVA) for parameter-based measurement of attention I: Evidence from normal subjects. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2005, 11:832-842.
12. Forster S., Lavie N. Attentional capture by entirely irrelevant distractors. Visual Cognition 2008, 16:200-214.
13. Forster S., Lavie N. Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition 2009, 111:345-355.
14. Handy T.C., Soltani M., Mangun G.R. Perceptual load and visuocortical processing: Event-related potentials reveal sensory-level selection. Psychological Science 2001, 12:213-218.
15. Kyllingsbæk S. Modeling visual attention. Behavior Research Methods 2006, 38:123-133.
16. Kyllingsbæk S., Valla C., Vanrie J., Bundesen C. Effects of spatial separation between stimuli in whole report from brief visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics 2007, 69:1040-1050.
17. Lavie N. Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995, 21:451-468.
18. Lavie N. Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9:75-82.
19. Lavie N., Cox S. On the efficiency of attentional selection: Efficient visual search results in inefficient rejection of distraction. Psychological Science 1997, 8:395-398.
20. Lavie N., Tsal Y. Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics 1994, 56:183-197.
21. Lavie N., Hirst A., De Fockert J.W., Viding E. Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:339-354.
22. Lavie N., Lin Z., Zokai N., Thoma V. The role of perceptual load in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:1346-1358.
23. Luck S.J., Vogel E.K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 1997, 390:279-281.
24. Paquet L., Craig G.L. Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task. Memory & Cognition 1997, 25:182-189.
25. Rees G., Frith C.D., Lavie N. Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. Science 1997, 278:1616-1619.
26. Shibuya H., Bundesen C. Visual selection from multielement displays: Measuring and modeling effects of exposure duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1988, 14:591-600.
27. Shiffrin R.M., Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing. II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review 1977, 84:127-190.
28. Sperling G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs 1960, 74.
29. Todd J.J., Marois R. Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature 2004, 428:751-754.
30. Torralbo A., Beck D.M. Perceptual load-induced selection as a result of local competitive interactions in visual cortex. Psychological Science 2008, 19:1045-1050.
31. Treisman A.M., Gelade G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 1980, 12:97-136.
32. Tsal Y., Benoni H. Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36:1645-1656. 10.1037/a0018172.
33. Vogel E.K., Machizawa M.G. Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature 2004, 428:748-751.