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
[31]   Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load [J].
Forster, Sophie ;
Lavie, Nilli .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED, 2008, 14 (01) :73-83
[32]   Scale of attentional focus in visual search [J].
Greenwood, PM ;
Parasuraman, R .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1999, 61 (05) :837-859
[33]   Perceptual load and visuocortical processing: Event-related potentials reveal sensory-level selection [J].
Handy, TC ;
Soltani, M ;
Mangun, GR .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2001, 12 (03) :213-218
[34]   Attention and spatial selection: Electrophysiological evidence for modulation by perceptual load [J].
Handy, TC ;
Mangun, GR .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2000, 62 (01) :175-186
[35]   Visual Spatial Attention to Multiple Locations at Once: The Jury Is Still Out [J].
Jans, Bert ;
Peters, Judith C. ;
De Weerd, Peter .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2010, 117 (02) :637-682
[36]   Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search [J].
Johnson, DN ;
McGrath, A ;
McNeil, C .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2002, 13 (03) :284-287
[37]   Load theory of selective attention and the role of perceptual load: Is it time for revision? [J].
Khetrapal, Neha .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 22 (01) :149-156
[38]   Early selection induced by perceptual load in a patient with frontal lobe damage: External vs. internal modulation of processing control [J].
Kumada, T ;
Humphreys, GW .
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 19 (01) :49-65
[39]   Understanding the allocation of attention when faced with varying perceptual load in partial report: A computational approach [J].
Kyllingsbaek, Soren ;
Sy, Jocelyn L. ;
Giesbrecht, Barry .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2011, 49 (06) :1487-1497
[40]   VARIATIONS IN SIZE OF THE VISUAL-FIELD IN WHICH TARGETS ARE PRESENTED - AN ATTENTIONAL RANGE EFFECT [J].
LABERGE, D ;
BROWN, V .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1986, 40 (03) :188-200