Chapter 4 - Attention

Attention (what is it; basic aspects?)

Attention (what is it; basic aspects?)

A cognitive process that involves focusing on specific stimuli while ignoring others.

Controlled or focused on task/stimuli; can be captured (e.g., by sudden, loud noise); can help filtering of information

Selective Attention (what is it; filter?)

Attention able to select only a subset of available information (some due to resource limitations)

Attention “allows in” relevant information to accomplishing a task or “filters” out irrelevant information

Dichotic Listening Task (method; results?)

Different messages played on each ear, shadow (repeat) message from one ear (attended) and ignore message on the other ear (unattended) → then asked what he message was in attended and unattended ear

From the unattended ear, they’re able to remember basic stimuli characteristics such as tone or speech, as well as types of sounds (male or female speakers); They couldn’t remember the content of the message change in language or specfic words

Broadbent’s Filter Model (what is it; process?)

An early selection model (of attention) that suggests a filter of information at early stages of processing (bottleneck in the initial stages of attention)

1) The attention filter is applied after an initial sensory stage (and before, which is processing);

2) We’re then able to filter out information based on physical aspects (e.g., pitch, loudness, location); t

3) Then meaning processing where some sensory information does not reach (blocked out, not processed at level of perception)

Broadbent’s Filter Model (during dichotic listening task: unattended and attended?)

Information in unattended ear is filtered out, and no meaning is processed; Information in attended ear passes through the filter and meaning is processed

Moray, 1959 (all unattended stimuli blocked; method; results)

If unattended messages doesn’t pass filter, then we should be unaware of the message. This study tested that.

Dichotic listening task where name was embedded within unattached message

Results: arround 33% detected name (4 out of 12 participants)

Treisman’s Attenuation Model

A modification of Broadbent’s filter model of attention where unattended messages are not completely blocked, they just become attenuated (“weakened”) and can still be processed for meaning

Treisman’s Attenuation Model (attenuator; weakens?)

The attenuator can process information at the physical level (pitch, loudness), linguistic level (langauge, words), and semantic level (meaning)

It also weakens information from unattended ear, not important to completing shadowing task

Treisman’s Attenuation Model (dictionary unity?)

Includes words learned and has thresholds: low threshold attends to important information (e.g., our names) - more likely to attend to; high threshold attends to uncommon words (less likely to be attended

LATE Selection Model

A late selection model where meaning and sensory/physical information is processed, then it can be selected for attention

Load Theory

Processing capacity is limited

Perceptual Load (increases based on?)

Increases based on amount of information to process, and complexity/difficulty of task

High Perceptual Load

No/reduced resources to process distractors, all resources are taken up by the task; distractor does not get processed

Low Perceptual Load

Resources available to process all stimuli, including distractor; distractor does get processed

Load Theory (early/late selection)

Can ssometimes use early or late selection;

If perceptual load is high, distraction would bot be processed into awareness, now perceptual resources to devote to distraction; early selection

If perceptual load is low, distraction would be processed, must select the “task” to filter out the distractions; late selection

Load Theory (when working memory is high; and low?)

Working memory (cognitive load) is high → (e.g., memorizing (random) 5-digit numbers; distraction of the faces would interfere with holding numbers in WM; reduced resources to inhibit distractor (more difficult to use top-down control for goal-oriented behavior)

Working memory is low → (e.g., easy digit series (01234); have enough resources to inhibit face distractor

Inattentional Blindness (what is it; does awareness of it help?)

Failure to perceive an object without attention (Simons & Chabris, 1999 - Gorilla); being aware of inattentional blindness does not necessarily help avoid it (Simons, 2010)

Driving & Load Theory - Murphy & Greene, 2016. (what is it (gap perception); low perceptual load vs high; results

A study that applied load theory to investigate how different levels of cognitive load affect driving performance - gap perception: can a car pass through a gap between parked cars

Low perceptual load - gap was very wide or very narrow

High perceptual load - gap a little too wide or little too narrow for car to pass by

In a few trials, a pedestrian or animal appeasrs, and participants were asked if they noticed anything, under low perceptual load, participants were more likely to be aware of Critical Stimulus (CS), whereas under high perceptual load, it increased the chances of inattentional blindness

Driving & Load Theory - Murphy & Greene, 2017 (method; distractors; unexpected stimuli; results: high and low load, and unexpected stimuli?)

A study with a driving simulator, where participants were to find a red mercedes among parked cars with distractors such as billboards of a red mercedes (told to ignore), congruent (on side of target car) and incongruent (opposite side of target car)

Unexpected stimuli included auditory (e.g., screeching breaks, horn beeping), visual (e.g., swerving vehicle, pedestrians)

Results during high perceptual load, participants took more time to search for the car, and “used up” perceptual capacity;

Results of awareness of unexpected stimuli: Auditory → low perceptual load: 100% aware, high load: 62.5%; Visual → low load: 92.5%, high load: 30%

Found that participants are more likely to detect unexpected stimuli under low perceptual load (enough remaining resources to detect)

Controlled Processes (what is it; what does practicinghelp?)

Tasks or cognitive processes that require conscious effort, deliberate focus, and consumes cognitive resources; may be slow and effortful to perform

Practicing helps automatization (e.g., reading: slow and effortful at first, then faster, and smoother)

Automaticity (what is it; Stroop, 1935 (practice): what is it; method?)

The ability to perform tasks or cognitive processes with little to no conscious effort, may use minimal or no mental resources, with no awareness or intention

The third experiment that focused on the role of practice on the interference experienced in the stroop task; he had participants complete 200 trials per day over 8 days; results: he found that response times became faster and more accurate with practice

Strayer et al., 2003 - Divided Attention (method; results?)

Participants were placed in a driving simulator with two conditions: driving only & driving + phone conversation (hands-free, interesting conversations);

Results: When driving & talking (dual task), participants reaction was impaired (slower) for breaking (high-traffic), there was increased following distance

Strayer et al., 2003 - Memory & Divided Attention (method; results?)

Participants were placed in a driving simulator with two conditions: driving only & driving + phone conversation; they would drive by several billboards (their eye movements would be track), and then given a recognition test for billboards (yes or no)

Results: Billboard recognition higher with driving only; the average amount of fixation time (in sec) for driving only: 1,112 and for driving + convo: 1,009; which is roughly the same. However if they saw (fixated) the billboard, the probability of recognizing it was for driving: 0.50 and for driving + phone convo: 0.24

Strayer et al., 2003 - Memory & Divided Attention (findings: competing tasks; more resources)

Both tasks are competing for limited attentional resources; if tasks that require more resources than available, then less attention would be given to each, impairing performance in both

Cooper & Strayer, 2008 - Drivingg & Divided Attention (method; results: collisions, transfer; findings?)

Participantns would practice driving and talking on the phone in different scenarios: highway or city; and for multiple days; on the final day, they would drive in a different scenario (to see if practice transfers to another scenario)

Results: more collisions under DA for both scenarios on day 1, by day 4, there was improvement, but no transfer of improvement for different scenarios

Findings: overall, unable to eliminate costs of DA with practice (as it wouldn’t transfer when driving in a new scenario; practive unable to overcome limitations of bottleneck of attentional resources (didn’t decrease resources needed for driving or talking tasks)

Feature Integration Theory (FIT)

A theory of attention and perception that explains how humans process and perceive complex visual stimuli

Illusory Conjuctions - Treisman, 1986 (method; results; findings?)

Participants were shown a quick presentation of stimuli (200ms), then they were asked about numbers and shapes

Results: 29% said they saw combinations of shapes and colors that weren’t actually presented (e.g., green triangle (there was a yellow triangle and green rectangle); 13% said they saw features that weren’t actually presented (e.g., purple shape (no purple shape)

Findings: Binding of features was disrupted; limited or divided attention (e.g., if focused on both numbers & shapes)

Feature Integration Theory - FIT (two stage process?)

1. Preattentive Stage

2. Focused Attention Stage

Preattentive Stage - FIT (what is it; pop-out features; independent features?)

The stage prior to attention that involves automatic processing; features are “unbound” or independent (we may see ‘red’ or a ‘circle’ but we haven’t connected the two just yet); we are unaware of this process

Some features like orientation, color, and movement are important in early visual processing

Even though consciously we detect a triagnle, it is detected first as independent features (i.e., lines & closure)

Focused Attention Stage - FIT (what is it; what causes binding problems?)

The stage that requires attention to “bind” individual features together (‘red’ + ‘circle’) to form a coherent perception of the object; combination of independent features; It is a conscious process

Disruptions or divided attention can lead to binding problems (as found in Illusory conjuctions)

Serial Search (Focused attention stage)

Searching item by item

Illusory Conjuctions - Treisman, 1986 (how to reduce: methods; results?)

Participants were told either random pairings (e.g., “orange triangle, blue ellipse, black ring”) or familar objects (e.g., “carrot, lake, and a tire”) and then shown an image of shapes and numbers

Results: If told random pairings, the participants were more likely to have illusory conjuctions; if told familiar objects, participants made less mistakes

Feature Integration Theory - Treisman, 1986 (expectations can ___; hint: bicycle image)

Expectation can influence visual search, which suggests top-down processing; spotting the bicycle would be easier if you know where to look (using prior knowledge)

Top-down Selective Attention

Goal-oriented attention that requires effort to select and maintain (intentional focus - focusing on information that will help complete a task); It’s a process under our control

Goal-oriented Attention - Theeuwes et al., 1998 (method; results?)

Participants were shown grey circles with 8s in them, then the circles would change colors to red with different letters in them, but 1 grey circle would remain. Participants would move their eyes to the remaining grey circle and were asked if the remaining grey circle had a “C”. In some trials there would be a distractor (an additional red circle). They would track eye movement to see if eye movement was influence by distraction

Results - With no distractor, eye movement was directly to the target, however with the distractor, eye movements were consistently disrupted (first at the distraction, then to target

Goal-oriented Attention - Theeuwes et al., 1998 (findings?)

Goal-oriented actions (eye movement to target) was disrupted by stimulus-driven distraction even if the distraction is task irrelevant

This showed that top-down (voluntary) action was disrupted by bottom-up (involuntary) attention capture

Bottom-up Selective Attention (attentional capture)

Stimulus-driven attention where the stimulus “captures” attention despite intentions (involuntary)

Goal-oriented Attention - Theeuwes et al., 1998 (top-down vs bottom-up interaction)

If a distractor is shown with enough time, top-down attention can override the bottom-up distraction; top down control needs time to avoid interference from attentional capture

Attention & Learning - Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009 (method; results; findings?)

Participants had to identify a specific target stimuli along distractors. Some stimuli were associated with rewards (e.g., monetary gains) and some with punishments (e.g., monetary loses); after each trial they would receive feedback (rewards or punishments for correct and incorrect)

Regardless of item (reward) history, the target item response was equal. But distractors responses influenced by history; inference from targets associated with high rewards; easier to ignore targets and distractors associated with low rewards

Findings: Overall, selection or suppression of stimulus influenced by reward history

Attention & Threats - Nissens et al., 2016 (methods; results; findings?)

Participants were told to fixate on a target among distractors (target had unique shape (e.g., circle among diamonds). There were two trials types: threat: shock if look at distactor and safe: no shock. They may also be shocked if they take too long to respond/fixate on target

Results: More first saccades (eye jerks) towards distractor under threat trials; there was a greater proportion of saccafes to distractor during the early/short latencies

Findings: Attentional bias towards threats can be automatic and involuntary (attention captured even when threat is not salient); voluntary attention (controlled top-down process) takes time to influence visual selection

Executive Function

The set of abilities we rely on to accurately complete tasks thst vary in difficulty

Stroop, 1935 - Stroop Task (method; why considered gold standard of attentional measures? hint: automatic vs controlled)

Participants were given a list of words, blocks, or symbols and asked to name the print color (the name of the color, and the color of the text we usually different, they would have to name the color of the text, not the words)

Consider the gold standard tol attentional measures becuse it demonstrates the distinction between automatic and controlled processing (reading is automatic; naming print color is controlled task)

Automatic Processing

Processing that is not controlled and does not tax cognitive resources (occurs without intention or awareness in many cases

Schneider and Shiffrin, 1997 (follow up study; what did it show; how; downside)

A study to demonstrate that with enough practice, detection speed and accuracy can reach automatic levels

After participants had lots of practice (around 2,100 trials), they were able to reliably detect targets (a set of consonants against distractor consonants) within the stream of distractors

That practice doesn’t transfer to different cases, when making the distractors the target and vice versa, participants performed slowly, practice actually harmed them in this version

Attention (two ways we direct it; definition?)

1. Outwards - directing our attention to specific events in the external environment (e.g., what to look at, what to listen for)

2. Inward - directing our attention to specific internal processes that we use when we are engaged in cognitive tasks (e.g., retrieving from long-term memory, deciding on a course of action)

Habituation

A decrease in response to a repeatedly presented stimulus (blocking out the A/C noise in after a while; hearing your breathing (i’m sorry))

Shadowing Task

A research procedure where participants are asked to repeat out loud (i.e., shadow) a message heard over headphones in one ear; at the same time, a competing message is played to the othe rear

Cocktail Party Effect (what is ti; what does it suggest?)

An effect of attention where one’s focus changes abruptly due to a salient stimulus (such as one’s name) in the environment; it suggests that more salient (i.e., important) information can get through the filter to capture attention

Conway et al. 2001 - Cocktail Party Effect (what was it about; method; relation to working memory)

A study that investigated the factors that contribute to the cocktail party effect (what causes some to detect their name in the unattended message)

Participants were asked to perform shadowing task, their first name was inserted into the unattended message; they presented a questionnaire to examin whether participants detected their name

After the task, they measured the participants work memory abilities and found that individual differences in working memory may explain why some people are more susceptible to the cocktail party effect than others (low-score group noticed their name more than in high-score group)

Treisman, 1960, 1961, 1964 (other factor in switching attention; what does this imply about early filter model?)

Treisman showed that participants report information form the competing message in a shadowing task when the information is meaningfully related to the informaiton in the attended-to message (BLACK/runs/MEOWS/funny vs march/CAT/clock/LOUDLY : BLACK CAT MEOWS LOUDLY was reported)

Information in the competing channle is clearly not being completely filtered out, as suggested by Broadbent’s filter model; filtering occurs early in the perceiving process, but it is only a partial filter

Visual Attention (two general function?)

1. Orientation - sampling and filtering

2. Integration - feature binding

Visual Filter (spotlight simile?)

Visual attention functions as a spotlight that can be moved around a scene as our attention intentionally shifts to different things or automatically when something salient captures our attention

LaBerge, 1983 - Visual Sptolight (method; results; findings; problem?)

Participants were asked to complete two tasks: 1) categorize a five-letter word, they made yes/no judgement about whether the center letter of a five-letter workd is a letter from A to G (designed to get their attention to the center of the screen); 2) detecting if the number 7 appeared (presented in an array with a distractor)

Results: repsonse times to the 7 increased linearly as the 7 appeared farther from the center of the screen

Findings: supports the idea that attention moves fromt he center of the screen to the target the same way that a spotlight would be moved around in space to focus on different aspects of the environment

Problem: results from other studies suggested that attention may be more distributed

Treisman and Gelade, 1980 (

Experiemnts to support the feature-integration model

Participants were asked to identify a target based on color, shape, or both color and shape (conjuction condition); participants had to identify whether any blue letter, an S, or a green T was present in the display; response time to detect the target was measured

Results: when the target differed by only one feature from the distractors, participants very quickly detected the target in all displays, regardless of how many items were in the display. However, when they had to detect a conjunction (green T), participants were slower as the number of distractors increased (blue letter and S seemd to pop out easily because of only 1 feature difference with distractors)

Kahneman, 1973 (what was proposed?)

A capacity model in which attention is conceptualized as a limited cognitive resource that can be allocated to different tasks based on our goal-directed intentions (more difficult tasks require more attention, and we allocate that to them);

We have control over the tasks we choose to allocate more resources to

Dual-task Method

A research procedure where participants are given two tasks to perform at once; to compare with performance on one task alone; to examine interference due to the second task

Simon Effect

Interference in response due to inconsistency between the response type or location and the stimulus (e.g., swipping up on the phone to scroll down); task and response are inconsistent

Simon & Rudell, 1967 - Simon Effect (

Participants were asked to press a key on the left side when they saw or heard one target and press a key on the right side when they saw or heard a different target (left key when left is heard or left key when right is heard)

Results: reaction time to complete this simple task was affected by the location of the presentation; participants were much slower when the word right was presented in the left ear and wen the word left was presented in the right ear

Simon Effect (two possible attentional mechanims; description?)

1. Attentional-movement hyptothesis - the shift in attention to a target on the left or the right side of one’s focus biases one for a response on the same side as the attention shift (other side must overcome this bias)

2. Referential-coding hypthesis - the bias in response side is due to correspondence between the response bias and an object of reference in the scene (bias to respond on one side is coded in reference to an object in the scene that one has attended to previously

Change Blindness

A lapse in attention causing a failure to perceive changes in our environment (e.g., curtain color change from gorilla video)

Simons an Chabris’s - 1999

A study that illustrates that misdirected attention is potentially an answer to why people fail to see something in a scene they are looking at

Participants were shown a video of a group of people passing a basketball, some wore white shirts and others wore black shorts. While the basketball was being passed around, either a person wearing a gorilla suit or a persona carrying an open umbrella walked through the scene; at the end of the video, participants were asked to write down their count of passes and if they noticed anything unusual

Results: more than hald of the participants did not noice the gorilla or umbrella

Mind-wandering

A shift in attention from an external ongoing task or event to self-generated internal thoughts and feels

Flow (or flow state)

A state of sustained attention requiring little effort to focus on a task and accompanied by a sense of control