The Effects Of Cognitive And Perceptual Load

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

The interaction of object- and space-based covert visual attention in an attentional cuing task – a replication of Egly, Driver and Rafal (1994)

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

were extended to 20 seconds as the PM cues were not in the direct focus of attention and

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

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

Overall this study provides some interesting insight into the field as it found that even in scenarios were the cues offer no insight into the next location of the target, the same IOR effect can be seen. This research found that trial validity appeared to have no effect on performance, implying that individuals do not simply shift attention to or from but rather do a complex combination of the

The Speed of Processing theory, which is what tends to happen when a person processes an action without being aware of it, is one of them [5]. Naming the color of the font of a word is not as common as reading an actual word. What this means is that easy tasks that we tend to overlearn since childhood, such as reading every word we see, tend to go into effect in our brain right after visual contact. Another explanation lies in the Selective Attention theory. Broadbent's 1985 study can explain the Selective Attention theory. Broadbent declared that information first enters a "sensory buffer" [6]. After the information enters the sensory buffer, selection of one of the inputs takes place within the basis of its physical characteristics. Broadbent places emphasis on what he calls a "sensory buffer" or filter in his study. This filter is used to prevent the brain from processing excessive amounts of information that could cause it to become overwhelmed and lose its ability to process the data efficiently [6]. The data that does not go through the filter does not become processed and eventually disintegrates [6]. Reading words does not require as much attention as naming the font color of a word does, which is why selective attention takes place [6]. Overall, the mind chooses to work with the task that requires the least amount of

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.,

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

Cognitive load theory intersects with human cognitive architecture by addressing working memory as limited to three to seven elements of information when the learning of new information is a requirement (Blissett, Cavalcanti, & Sibbald, 2012). Yet, where there is familiarity of information, both capacity and duration limits of working memory are eliminated (Paas & Ayres, 2014). Cognitive load theory introduces the prominence of cognitive schemas as a strategic approach toward the organizing and storage of knowledge using the concept of chunking multiple elements of information within a single element with a specific purpose (Paas & Ayres, 2014). Cognitive schemas explains a learner’s transition from novice to skilled due to the creation

We are replicating J.R. Stroop’s original experiment The Stroop Effect (Stroop, 1935). The aim of the study was to understand how automatic processing interferes with attempts to attend to sensory information. The independent variable of our experiment was the three conditions, the congruent words, the incongruent words, and the colored squares, and the dependent variable was the time that it took participants to state the ink color of the list of words in each condition. We used repeated measures for the experiment in order to avoid influence of extraneous variables. The participants were 16-17 years of age from Garland High School. The participants will be timed on how long it takes them to say the color of the squares and the color of the words. The research was conducted in the Math Studies class. The participants were aged 16-17 and were students at Garland High School. The results showed that participants took the most time with the incongruent words.