Zooming in on the Cause of the Perceptual Load Effect in the Go/No-Go Paradigm

被引:22
作者
Chen, Zhe [1 ]
Cave, Kyle R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Canterbury, Dept Psychol, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
[2] Univ Massachusetts, Dept Psychol & Brain Sci, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
关键词
attentional zoom; perceptual load; dilution; distractor interference; go/no-go task; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; VISUAL-SEARCH; WORKING-MEMORY; DILUTION; TARGET; INTERFERENCE; CAPTURE; FOCUS; SET; DISTRACTORS;
D O I
10.1037/xhp0000168
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 2005) claims that attentional capacity that is not used for the current task is allocated to irrelevant distractors. It predicts that if the attentional demands of the current task are high, distractor interference will be low. One particularly powerful demonstration of perceptual load effects on distractor processing relies on a go/no-go cue that is interpreted by either simple feature detection or feature conjunction (Lavie, 1995). However, a possible alternative interpretation of these effects is that the differential degree of distractor processing is caused by how broadly attention is allocated (attentional zoom) rather than to perceptual load. In 4 experiments, we show that when stimuli are arranged to equalize the extent of spatial attention across conditions, distractor interference varies little whether cues are defined by a simple feature or a conjunction, and that the typical perceptual load effect emerges only when attentional zoom can covary with perceptual load. These results suggest that attentional zoom can account for the differential degree of distractor processing traditionally attributed to perceptual load in the go/no-go paradigm. They also provide new insight into how different factors interact to control distractor interference.
引用
收藏
页码:1072 / 1087
页数:16
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], PERCEPTION CONSCIOUS
[2]  
Auckland M. E., 2005, THESIS
[3]   Unconscious orientation processing depends on perceptual load [J].
Bahrami, Bahador ;
Carmel, David ;
Walsh, Vincent ;
Rees, Geraint ;
Lavie, Nilli .
JOURNAL OF VISION, 2008, 8 (03)
[4]   VISUAL PARSING AND RESPONSE COMPETITION - THE EFFECT OF GROUPING FACTORS [J].
BAYLIS, GC ;
DRIVER, J .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1992, 51 (02) :145-162
[5]   The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons [J].
Belopolsky, Artem V. ;
Zwaan, Laura ;
Theeuwes, Jan ;
Kramer, Arthur F. .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2007, 14 (05) :934-938
[6]   No capture outside the attentional window [J].
Belopolsky, Artem V. ;
Theeuwes, Jan .
VISION RESEARCH, 2010, 50 (23) :2543-2550
[7]   Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load [J].
Benoni, Hanna ;
Tsal, Yehoshua .
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 4
[8]   Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention [J].
Benoni, Hanna ;
Tsal, Yehoshua .
VISION RESEARCH, 2010, 50 (13) :1292-1298
[9]   Competition between color salience and perceptual load during visual selection can be biased by top-down set [J].
Biggs, Adam T. ;
Gibson, Bradley S. .
ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2010, 72 (01) :53-64
[10]   Distractor effects during processing of words under load [J].
Brand-D'Abrescia, Muriele ;
Lavie, Nilli .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2007, 14 (06) :1153-1157