Limits...
Quick minds slowed down: effects of rotation and stimulus category on the attentional blink.

Martens S, Korucuoglu O, Smid HG, Nieuwenstein MR - PLoS ONE (2010)

Bottom Line: However, there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the effect, with some people showing no such attentional restrictions.Electrophysiologically, in non-blinkers this resulted in enhanced distractor-related prefrontal brain activity, as well as delayed target-related occipito-parietal activity (P3).These findings shed new light on possible strategic mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in AB magnitude and provide intriguing clues as to how temporal restrictions as reflected in the AB can be overcome.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Neuroimaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. s.martens@med.umcg.nl

ABSTRACT

Background: Most people show a remarkable deficit to report the second of two targets when presented in close temporal succession, reflecting an attentional restriction known as the 'attentional blink' (AB). However, there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the effect, with some people showing no such attentional restrictions.

Methodology/principal findings: Here we present behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggesting that these 'non-blinkers' can use alphanumeric category information to select targets at an early processing stage. When such information was unavailable and target selection could only be based on information that is processed relatively late (rotation), even non-blinkers show a substantial AB. Electrophysiologically, in non-blinkers this resulted in enhanced distractor-related prefrontal brain activity, as well as delayed target-related occipito-parietal activity (P3).

Conclusion/significance: These findings shed new light on possible strategic mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in AB magnitude and provide intriguing clues as to how temporal restrictions as reflected in the AB can be overcome.

Show MeSH
Target accuracy in Experiment 1 and 2.(A) Mean percentage correct report of T1 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2 as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. (B) Mean percentage correct report of T2 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2, given correct report of T1, as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2958832&req=5

pone-0013509-g003: Target accuracy in Experiment 1 and 2.(A) Mean percentage correct report of T1 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2 as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. (B) Mean percentage correct report of T2 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2, given correct report of T1, as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.

Mentions: Figure 3A shows T1 performance in the four conditions as a function of the SOA between the targets for non-blinkers and blinkers, respectively. For the non-blinkers, mean T1 performance was 84.8% in the standard condition, 85.0% in the rotated targets condition, 84.4% in the rotated distractors condition, and 84.5% in the rotated stimuli condition. For the blinkers, mean T1 performance was 83.5% in the standard condition, 84.7% in the rotated targets condition, 83.4% in the rotated distractors condition, and 84.0% in the rotated stimuli condition. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (non-blinkers or blinkers) as a between-subjects factor and condition (standard stimuli, rotated targets, rotated distractors, or rotated stimuli) and SOA (100 to 800 ms, corresponding to lags 1–8) as a within-subjects factor revealed only a significant effect of SOA, F(7, 154)  = 10.04, MSE  = 60.61, p<.001, η2p = .31. Pairwise comparisons showed that performance at SOA 100 (lag 1) was worse than at the other SOAs (ps<.01). Although there was a trend for a main effect of group (p = .07), neither condition (p = .24), nor any interactions (ps>.46) were significant, suggesting that T1 performance was largely comparable across groups and conditions.


Quick minds slowed down: effects of rotation and stimulus category on the attentional blink.

Martens S, Korucuoglu O, Smid HG, Nieuwenstein MR - PLoS ONE (2010)

Target accuracy in Experiment 1 and 2.(A) Mean percentage correct report of T1 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2 as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. (B) Mean percentage correct report of T2 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2, given correct report of T1, as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2958832&req=5

pone-0013509-g003: Target accuracy in Experiment 1 and 2.(A) Mean percentage correct report of T1 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2 as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. (B) Mean percentage correct report of T2 in the standard condition (Experiment 1), rotated targets, rotated distractors, and rotated stimuli conditions of Experiment 2, given correct report of T1, as a function of target SOA, for non-blinkers and blinkers. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.
Mentions: Figure 3A shows T1 performance in the four conditions as a function of the SOA between the targets for non-blinkers and blinkers, respectively. For the non-blinkers, mean T1 performance was 84.8% in the standard condition, 85.0% in the rotated targets condition, 84.4% in the rotated distractors condition, and 84.5% in the rotated stimuli condition. For the blinkers, mean T1 performance was 83.5% in the standard condition, 84.7% in the rotated targets condition, 83.4% in the rotated distractors condition, and 84.0% in the rotated stimuli condition. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (non-blinkers or blinkers) as a between-subjects factor and condition (standard stimuli, rotated targets, rotated distractors, or rotated stimuli) and SOA (100 to 800 ms, corresponding to lags 1–8) as a within-subjects factor revealed only a significant effect of SOA, F(7, 154)  = 10.04, MSE  = 60.61, p<.001, η2p = .31. Pairwise comparisons showed that performance at SOA 100 (lag 1) was worse than at the other SOAs (ps<.01). Although there was a trend for a main effect of group (p = .07), neither condition (p = .24), nor any interactions (ps>.46) were significant, suggesting that T1 performance was largely comparable across groups and conditions.

Bottom Line: However, there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the effect, with some people showing no such attentional restrictions.Electrophysiologically, in non-blinkers this resulted in enhanced distractor-related prefrontal brain activity, as well as delayed target-related occipito-parietal activity (P3).These findings shed new light on possible strategic mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in AB magnitude and provide intriguing clues as to how temporal restrictions as reflected in the AB can be overcome.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Neuroimaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. s.martens@med.umcg.nl

ABSTRACT

Background: Most people show a remarkable deficit to report the second of two targets when presented in close temporal succession, reflecting an attentional restriction known as the 'attentional blink' (AB). However, there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the effect, with some people showing no such attentional restrictions.

Methodology/principal findings: Here we present behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggesting that these 'non-blinkers' can use alphanumeric category information to select targets at an early processing stage. When such information was unavailable and target selection could only be based on information that is processed relatively late (rotation), even non-blinkers show a substantial AB. Electrophysiologically, in non-blinkers this resulted in enhanced distractor-related prefrontal brain activity, as well as delayed target-related occipito-parietal activity (P3).

Conclusion/significance: These findings shed new light on possible strategic mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in AB magnitude and provide intriguing clues as to how temporal restrictions as reflected in the AB can be overcome.

Show MeSH