Abstract
The authors have argued elsewhere that the attentional blink (AB; i.e., reduced target detection shortly after presentation of an earlier target) arises from blocked or disrupted perceptual input in response to distractors presented between the targets. When targets replace the intervening distractors, so that three targets (T1, T2, and T3) are presented sequentially, performance on T2 and T3 improves. Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) argued that T3 performance improves at the expense of T1, and thus provides evidence for resource depletion. They showed that when T1 is made more salient (and presumably draws more resources), an AB for T3 appears to reemerge. These findings can be better explained, however, by (1) the relationship between T1 and T2 (not T1 and T3) and (2) differential salience for T3 in the long-lag condition of Dux et al.’s study. In conclusion, the Dux et al. study does not present a severe challenge to input control theories of the AB.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 109–127.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.
Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J.-I., Ghorashi, S. M. S., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control? Psychological Research, 69, 191–200.
Dux, P. E., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2008). An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: Evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 809–813.
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of shortterm consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.
Kawahara, J.-I., Kumada, T., & Di Lollo, V. (2006). The attentional blink is governed by a temporary loss of control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 886–890.
Nieuwenstein, M. R., & Potter, M. C. (2006). Temporal limits of selection and memory encoding: A comparison of whole versus partial report in rapid serial visual presentation. Psychological Science, 17, 471–475.
Olivers, C. N. L. (2007). The time course of attention: It’s better than we thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 11–15.
Olivers, C. N. L., van der Stigchel, S., & Hulleman, J. (2007). Spreading the sparing: Against a limited-capacity account of the attentional blink. Psychological Research, 71, 126–139.
Potter, M. C., Staub, A., & O’Connor, D. H. (2002). The time course of competition for attention: Attention is initially labile. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1149–1162.
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.
Reeves, A., & Sperling, G. (1986). Attention gating in short-term visual memory. Psychological Review, 93, 180–206.
Weichselgartner, E., & Sperling, G. (1987). Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. Science, 238, 778–780.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by VIDI Grant 452-06-007 from NWO (the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) to C.N.L.O.; a Nissan Science Foundation grant to J.K.; a Canadian Foundation for Innovation New Opportunities grant and a British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund grant to T.M.S.; and Discovery grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to T.M.S. and V.D.L.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Olivers, C.N.L., Spalek, T.M., Kawahara, JI. et al. The attentional blink: Increasing target salience provides no evidence for resource depletion. A commentary on Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 214–218 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.214
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.214