Conditions of directed attention inhibit recognition performance for explicitly presented target-aligned irrelevant stimuli

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 138, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 60-67

  Dewald, Andrew D ^a   Sinnett, Scott ^a   Doumas, Leonidas A A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention and perception; Human performance; Inhibition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; VISION;

ATTENTION; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80052888472     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ahissar M., Hochstein S. Attentional control of early perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1993, 90:5718-5722.
2. Alsius A., Navarra J., Campbell R., Soto-Faraco S. Audiovisual integration of speech falters under high attention demands. Current Biology 2005, 15(9):839-843.
3. Bright P., Moss H., Tyler L.K. Unitary vs multiple semantics: PET studies of word and picture processing. Brain and Language 2004, 89:417-432.
4. Broadbent D.E. Perception and communication 1958, Pergamon Press, London.
5. Buchel C., Price F., Friston K.J. The functional anatomy of attention to visual motion. A functional MRI study. Brain 1998, 121(7):1281-1294.
6. Cherry E.C. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1953, 25:975-979.
7. Craik F.I.M., Lockhart R.S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 1972, 11(6).
8. James W. The principles of psychology 1890, Vol. 1. Holt, New York, (Reprinted in 1950 by Dover Press, New York).
9. Lavie N. Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995, 21:451-468.
10. Lavie N. The role of perceptual load in visual awareness. Brain Research 2005, 1080(1):91-100.
11. Lin J.Y., Pype A.D., Murray, Boynton G.M. Enhanced memory for scenes presented at relevant points in time. PLoS Biology 2010, 8(3):E1000337.
12. Lupker S.J. Semantic priming without association: A second look. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1984, 23:709-733.
13. Mack A., Rock I. Inattentional blindness 1998, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
14. Milliken B., Joordens S., Merikle P., Seiffert A.E. Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implication of negative priming. Psychological Review 1998, 105(2):203-229.
15. Moray N. Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1959, 11:56-60.
16. Rees G., Frith C.D., Lavie N. Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. Science 1997, 278(5343):1616-1619.
17. Rees G., Russell C., Frith C.D., Driver J. Inattentional blindness versus inattentional amnesia for fixated but ignored words. Science 1999, 286:2504-2507.
18. Seitz A.R., Watanabe T. Psychophysics: Is subliminal learning really passive?. Nature 2003, 422:36.
19. Seitz A.R., Watanabe T. A unified model for perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 2005, 9(7):329-334.
20. Simons D.J., Chabris C.F. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 1999, 28:1059-1074.
21. Sinnett S., Costa A., Soto-Faraco S. Manipulating inattentional blindness within and across sensory modalities. Quarterly Journal of experimental Psychology 2006, 59(8):1425-1442.
22. Snodgrass J.G., Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1980, 6:174-215.
23. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-662.
24. Swallow K.M., Jiang Y.V. The attentional boost effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task. Cognition 2010, 115:118-132.
25. Swallow K.M., Jiang Y.V. The role of timing in the attentional boost effect. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 2011, 73:389-404.
26. Tipper S.P. The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1985, 37:571-590.
27. Tipper S.P., Driver J. Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli. Memory & Cognition 1988, 16(1):64-70.
28. Tomlinson T.D., Huber D.E., Rieth C.A., Davelaar E.J. An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2009, 106:15588-15593.
29. Tootell B., Silverman M.S., De Valois R.L. Spatial frequency columns in primary visual cortex. Science 1995, 214(4522):813-815.
30. Treisman A. Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1960, 12:242-248.
31. Tshushima Y., Sasaki Y., Watanabe T. Greater disruption due to failure of inhibitory control on an ambiguous distractor. Science 2006, 314:1786-1788.
32. Tsushima Y., Seitz A.R., Watanabe T. Task-irrelevant learning occurs only when the irrelevant feature is weak. Current Biology 2008, 18(12):516-517.
33. Van der Burg E., Brederoo S.G., Nieuwenstein M.R., Theeuwes I., Olivers N.L.C. Audiovisual semantic interference and attention: Evidence from the attentional blink paradigm. Acta Psychologica 2010, 134(2010):198-203.
34. Watanabe T., Náñez Y., Sasaki S. Perceptual learning without perception. Nature 2001, 413:844-848.
35. Wilson M.D. The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 1988, 20:6-11.