Abstract
Identification of the second of two targets is impaired when the second target is presented less than about 500 msec after the first. Nieuwenstein, Chun, van der Lubbe, and Hooge (2005, Experiment 4) reported that the magnitude of this attentional blink (AB) is reduced when the location of the second target is precued. Here we show how that finding resulted from an artifact brought about by a ceiling imposed by data limitation. Instead of using an accuracy measure, the present work used a dynamic threshold-tracking procedure that was not constrained by a performance ceiling. The results show that, when the ceiling is removed, spatial cuing does not affect and is not affected by the AB. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that cue localization and target identification may take place along separate (dorsal and ventral) visual pathways.
Article PDF
References
Colegate, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. (1973). Selective encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 217–224.
Dell’Acqua, R., Sessa, P., Jolicoeur, P., & Robitaille, N. (2006). Spatial attention freezes during the attention blink. Psychophysiology, 43, 394–400.
Di Lollo, V., Hogben, J. H., & Dixon, P. (1994). Temporal integration and segregation of brief visual stimuli: Patterns of correlation in time. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 373–386.
Ghorashi, S., Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2008, November). Spatial orienting is not impaired during the attentional blink. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 49, 55.
Nieuwenstein, M. R., Chun, M. M., van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Hooge, I. T. C. (2005). Delayed attentional engagement in the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1463–1475.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The beneficial effect of concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 16, 265–269.
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 849–860.
Shapiro, K. L., Caldwell, J., & Sorensen, R. E. (1997). Personal names and the attentional blink: A visual “cocktail party” effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 504–514.
Spalek, T. M., Falcon, L. J., & Di Lollo, V. (2006). Attentional blink and attentional capture: Endogenous versus exogenous control over paying attention to two important events in close succession. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 674–684.
Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782–787.
Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549–586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.
Zhang, D., Shao, L., Nieuwenstein, M. [R.], & Zhou, X. (2008). Topdown control is not lost in the attentional blink: Evidence from intact endogenous cuing. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 287–295.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present study was supported by a PGS-D grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to S.G. and by Discovery grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to J.T.E., T.M.S., and V.D.L.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghorashi, S., Enns, J.T., Spalek, T.M. et al. Spatial cuing does not affect the magnitude of the attentional blink. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 989–993 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.5.989
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.5.989