Attentional Capture by Rare and Constant, Novel, Sudden Onset Stimuli
Samuel Tong (450472150)
ABSTRACT
Novel and rare sudden onset stimuli are known to attract attention in different situations. Previously Yantis & Jonides (1990) have shown novel sudden onsets capture attention mainly when attention is diffuse, and Neo & Chua (2006) have shown rare sudden onsets capture attention so long as attention is not already pre-deployed to a stationary target. The current study aims to examine the interaction between rarity of a novel, sudden onset and attention pre-deployment by cues or stationary targets, and how this interaction affects the attentional capture of novel sudden onsets. In doing so, a better understanding of how these stimuli affect attentional processes may be established. Based upon the experimental findings, it is proposed that when a sudden onset stimulus is both rare and novel, the attentional capture processes when perceiving these stimuli are influenced by perceptual load and modes of attention. Implications of these findings are discussed further in the paper.
Attentional Capture by Rare and Constant Novel Sudden Onset Stimuli
Attentional capture is controlled by top down, goal orientated processes, or by bottom up, stimulus orientated processes (Wolfe, 1994, as cited by Emerson & Kramer, 1997). Stimuli that appear suddenly, or sudden onset stimuli, are known to attract attention in a bottom-up fashion (Donderi, Zelnicker 1996, as
Selective attention is the focusing of conscious awareness on a particular stimulus. (Myers, 2016, p.82) In round 3, of competitive cheerleading, we have to focus on many things while competing. While we are in a stunt, we have to look at the other cheerleaders around us and yell the words. Bases and backspots have to look the the flier, and make sure she is stable in the stunt they are in. We also have to make sure she does not hit the mat when the flier come out of a stunt. Back stops are required to look at the flier the whole time she is in the air. Bases are able to look switch their attention from the flier to the crowd. When we are moving to different positions, we have to watch the other girls moving around us so we do not collide.
Attention is thought to be selective-focused on one subject at a time. Traditionally, it has been assumed that automatic processing is involuntary, it does not require attention, and is relatively fast; whereas, controlled processing is voluntary, does require attention, and is relatively slow. We can conclude from this that the more we repeat a certain material or tasks the more it becomes automatic and effortless to us.
Attention is considered to be a core cognitive process, it refers to how people actively process specific information in the environment. Attention refers to how people select from information and stimuli in the environment, facilitating processing of some of the stimuli and inhibiting processing of others. "Everyone knows what attention is, it is the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought...It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state. “This definition of attention was proposed by psychologist William James (1890). This review will focus on literature that gives explanation to selective attention. Selective attention refers to the process where a person is able to select out of many stimuli and focus on the one they want and ignore other stimuli.
The purpose of the study was to measure the effect that the Flicker Paradigm had on visual perception. The Flicker Paradigm causes a distraction while there is a change made in the image. It was designed to test how long the groups took to react to a change in the visual field. The test is meant to show that the disturbance in the visual field made it much more challenging for the viewer to notice any changes that were made in the image. The hypothesis stated that the experimental group, the group using the Flicker Paradigm, would take longer to notice the change in the visual field than the control group, which had no flicker between the altered images. This is because the disturbance in the visual field caused the brain to miss the change that was made to the image because the information was deemed as unimportant. The majority of the perceived changes occurred in the background of the scene, and were considered minor in reference to the whole scene. This was proven true from the data collected, and coincided with previous tests. (Rensink, R. A. 2000). The data in tables 1.1 and 1.3 shows the individual participant data for the test with a flicker for both tests one and two. Tables 1.2 and 1.4 represent the individual results for the tests with no flicker, or the control group. Graphs 1.1 and 1.2 showed the relationship between the time taken to recognize alterations in the images. The data was taken from the average time to recognize the change from all
Evidence for space-based attention comes primarily from a variety of cuing tasks, which assume that reaction time for detecting a target indicates processing efficiency. Since attention enhances processing efficiency, one would expect that reaction times are faster for attended features, and slower for unattended ones. For example, Posner (1980) showed that target letters were identified more quickly when they had been pre-cued by a dot in the same location. This suggests that attention was directed at the cued region of space. Egly and Homa (1984) used a task in which a general circular area was pre-cued. They found that stimulus detection was
In the short video of “Awesome Ball Girl”, there is a young ball girl working in the field that makes such a great catch, most professionals would not have been able to make. At the start of the video you would think that you are about to see a home run after a great hit, but my eyes were drawn elsewhere; just like the crowd and two teams. This shows the first stage in the perception process: selection. Selection occurs when one or more of your senses are stimulated, where your mind and body help you choose what stimuli to attend to (Floyd 109). Of my five senses, this video affected my vision and my hearing since I was watching a screen; more
Abrupt appearance of an object within peripheral visual fields are sudden onset distractors (SOD) and they can have effects on attention and reaction times. Attentional capture occurs when a distractor stimulus appears in a field of vision and pulls focus away from the task at hand. This has the effect of increasing reaction times as it diverts a subject’s attention while the brain registers and processes the new information. When the brain is focussed upon a specific task the distractor captures attention and thus can increase reaction time through this visual processing mechanism. This demonstrates automaticity, a reflex which is both not inhibited by increasing cognitive load (load-insensitivity criterion) and not voluntarily controlled (intentionality criterion). The attentional
This study examined whether participant’s response times to global target were faster than local targets. Participants had to identify global and local shapes and letters as quick as possible and the response times which were recorded to the computer data. The study was a replication of Navon’s (1977), (cited in Ness Smith and Thirkettle, 2014) experiment but differed, as it was a focused attention task whereas this experiment was a divided attention task. This was the same as Yovel (2001), (cited in Ness, Smith and Thirkettle, 2014) mixed attention task study which tested the global to local accounts. The current
Powell (1986) conducted a study in which individuals viewed a photo or slide. Individuals were required to scan images and decide on an image for the entire display (Powell, 1986). Objects were pointed to, and subjects were asked to identify its location (Powell, 1986). The subject was asked to close his or her eyes and were shown another image. The subjects were to decide if the object was in the correct position (Powell, 1986). The subjects would hear one of the objects and was required to focus on the object while keeping the entire image in his or her mind (Powell, 1986). When the next object was identified, the subjects were to move from the first object to the second watching a black dot moving in a straight line (Powell, 1986).
The trials for each of the six conditions were presented in a random order. The experimenter controlled for differences among participants by having them set their own equiluminant point for the cue stimuli and eliminated luminance differences by embedding the stimuli in a random luminance noise. The experimenter also controlled for outliers by eliminating response
Early studies have widely researched attention with selective processing (Driver, 2001). Broadbent (1958) filter theory of attention states that certain information does not require focal attention. It is based on certain stimulus attributes such as colour and shape (Friedenberg, 2012). A previous study carried out by Treisman and Schmidt (1982) proposes that when attention is diverted from a display of several figures, the participants incorrectly combine the features of colour and shape therefore increases the illusory conjunctions portrayed by the participants (Tsal, 1989). Another study by Shaw (1978) found that reaction time of participant to identify targets varied with the probability that a target would appear in a particular display location. These results indicate that different amounts of attention towards the targets are distributed to different positions in the visual field. However, Houck and Hoffman (1986) found that the feature integration of colour and orientation can sometimes be accomplished without attention (James et al.,
This study investigated if there was a difference in reaction when the students were concentrating compared to when the students were distracted. The raw data showed a difference in mean reactions time between the two conditions and a paired t-test deemed the differences significant (t = -2.8715, df = 49, p-value = 0.0060). The null hypothesis is rejected and the mean difference between concentrating and distracted reaction times is not zero. The mean concentrated reaction times are smaller than the distracted reaction times. Each person could react quicker when they were concentration compared to when they
The article by Avital-Cohen and Tsal (2016) discussed the flanker task experiment, which asserted that distractor interference happens unconsciously as a result of focused attention toward the target. The results from the original flanker task indicated that participants had slower responses for incongruent trials, since the distractors are inconsistent with the target and would require a different response (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). However, Avital-Cohen and Tsal (2016) questioned the findings from the flanker task experiment. They decided to challenge the idea that only the target stimuli receives top-down processing, and not the distractors (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). The first experiment aimed to test whether the distractor interference is purely bottom-up processing as claimed in the flanker task. The experiment manipulated participants’ expectations of the target using the context effect - a type of top-down processing - by changing the distractors to be either letters or digits (Psych 240 lecture, 9/21/16). Then, the researchers conducted a second experiment and eliminated the ambiguity of distractors. They wanted to test whether the result from experiment 1 was caused by an overall bias or the ambiguous distractors. In experiment 2, the researchers predicted that they would obtain similar results to the first experiment only if the results were due to an overall bias effect (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). This study allows us to deepen our understanding of available
Compare and contrast early vs late selection models of attention. How well do they explain how we selectively attend to information?
Research carried out on attention has mainly been associated with the selective processing of incoming sensory information. It proposes, to some degree, our awareness of the world depends on what we choose to focus on and not simply the stimulation received by our senses. Attention is often linked to a filter that screens out most potential stimuli whilst allowing a select few to pass through into our conscious awareness, however, a great deal of debate has been devoted to where the filter is situated in the information processing chain (Martindale, 1991). Psychologists have made extensive contributions to this subject matter in the past century. Notable examples include Donald Broadbent's filter theory of attention (1958), which set the