Attention 2

• what is leakage? Treisman 1960/1964

  the filter doesn't block information from the irrelevant channel - it attenuates it

  information from the irrelevant channel "leaks" through the filter

  attenuated information can activate concepts in LTM --> identification of stimuli
• slippage and spillover


  you can't aim water (attentional resources) precisely enough - at least not all the time.

  it isn't possible to focus on the relevant channel at all times

  consequence = if attention isn't properly focused - attention will slip to the irrelevant channel.
• evidence for slippage


  early selection theories assume there's no identification without attention

  - is only analysed with attention

  - if the stimuli in the irrelevant channel have been identified = then been attended
• evidence for slippage - early selection theory

  the meaning is analysed before input is filter (identification can't occur without attention)

  the process of meaning

  - automatic - not under voluntary control

  - not capacity limited - everything is fully analysed
• Lachter et al 2004

  - over 40 years researchers assumed there's identification without attention

  There's a need to reinterpret old experiments + conduct new experiments
• Own name effect and working memory capacity - Conway et al 2001

  - tested a group with high working memory capacity + one with low working memory capacity

  1. Group A (light bar) - 20% noticed their own name

  2. Group B (dark bar) - 65% noticed their own name.
• results of Conway et al 2001

  the high working memory capacity group (A) - 20% noticed their own name

  the low WMC group (dark bar) - 65% noticed their own name
• conclusion of own name effect & working memory capacity

  - the own name effect depended on working-memory capacity

  ppts with low working memory noticed their name most frequently (Conway et al 2001)

  ppts with low working memory experienced difficulties focusing their attention (Colflesh + Conway 2007)

  - so low WMC subjects more likely to let attention slip to the irrelevant channel

  - ppts with high WMC better able to control their attention

  So the own name effect is real & an attentional problem.
• channel switching


  - revised Treisman 1960 study

  - could happen when subjects get confused when a semantically coherent message suddenly becomes incoherent

  - to resolve the ambiguity - maybe participants reallocate their attention = would be a form of slippage
• Dawson & Schell 1962 (replicating the electric shock conditioning study)

  Ppts were trained to pair certain words with an electric shock

  Those words were then presented to the unattended channel.

  Ppts showed changes in skin conductance to words (although they were "unattended)
• Dawson & Schell 1962 (replicating the electric shock conditioning study) - RESULTS

  - Found skin conductance changes, but in subjects who:

  Failed to shadow relevant channel

  Recalled material from irrelevant channel

  Suggests there may be slippage of attentional resources + some participants do attend the irrelevant channel.
• Lachter et al:


  Hypothesis: "If we can exclude slippage, there will be no identification w/o attention.

  How did they exclude slippage?

  Used visual stimuli and presented relevant and irrelevant stimuli in different locations.

  Presented the stimuli in irrelevant locations v briefly (55ms)
• How does Lachter et al exclude slippage?

  - shifts of attention need time - it isn't possible to shift attention to an irrelevant location in 55 ms.
• repitition priming - Lachter et al

  In priming experiments - an irrelevant prime word (lower case) = presented shortly before the target word (upper case)

  Ppts make a button press to indicate if the word in upper case is an actual word or pseudo-word

  If a prime word = same as the target word (upper case) = can speed up responses to the target word.
• How does repitition priming work?

  seeing tghe prime activates the concept in memory
• repitition priming in different locations

  Classic repetition: prime + target is presented in the same location on the screen.

  Lachter et al - prime was presented in a different location to the target

  Target - always presented in the center.

  Prime - presented at the top of the screen.

  Prime and target = presented for a v. short duration (55ms)
• Lachter et al results:

  Overall, 4 conditions

  Location = same as target or above

  Word identity: same (cat-CAT) / different (tip - CAT)

  = 2 by 2 design.

  Where the prime was in the same location then reaction times were

  Faster (smaller) when the prime + target were the same

  Slower (larger) when the prime and target were different.
• Lachter et al - possible results for different location:

  Possible outcome 1:

  The same prime in different locations doesn't affect RT's (reaction times)

  Reaction times are the same

  Possible outcome 2:

  Same prime in different location does affect RTs

  Is a speeded response

  VOTE: which outcome (1 or 2) would suggest that attention is necessary for identification?
• Lachter et al - interpretation of possible results

  Possible outcome 1:

  
  

  Broadbent is correct

  Is no identification without attention

  So, the same prime in different location doesn't affect RTs

  
  

  Possible outcome 2:

  
  

  Broadbent is wrong

  Identification occurs without attention

  The same prime in different location does affect RTs
• Lachter et al : THE ACTUAL RESULT

  Possible outcome 1:

  
  

  Broadbent was correct

  There's no identification without attention

  So, the same prime in different location doesn't affect RTs
• was Broadbent correct? - Kouider et al 2014

  Training with auditory stimuli:

  
  

  Left hand response if word = animal

  Right hand response if word = man-made object

  During sleep they presented new (untrained words)

  Result: ppts prepared a response in their sleep (shown with EEG/ electroencephalography)

  Ppts must have understood the meanings of the words

  Tentative conclusion: maybe there's identification w/o attention (but only in the auditory domain)
• Spillover - Lavie 1955

  Combined assumptions from late + early selection

  Perceptual processing is automatic

  Typical assumption from the late selection theory

  Going back to the resource metaphor - assumes all the water has to be used

  In contrast to late selection theory - argued that perceptual processing is capacity limited

  Is a typical assumption from the early selection theory

  Is a limited amount of water in the cup

  Theory can sometimes be portrayed as a "hybrid" theory that combines, assumptions from early + late selection theories

  Is actually an early selection theory - it assumes there's no identification without attention (Benoni +Tsal 2013)
• Lavie 1955 - spillover

  assumes - identification of irrelevant stimuli only if there's processing of relevant stimuli
• Lavie 1955 - capacity limitations


  If processing of relevant stimuli consumes all available resources = then there's no identification of irrelevant stimuli.
• Lavie and Cox 1997

  Task = detect target letter in circle (always X/N) - press left for N + press right for X.

  Flanking distractor letter presented at the side of the screen (also X/N) = irrelevant.

  Lavie and Cox (1997) - trial types:

  Compatible trials: the target and flanker = identical

  Incompatible trials the target and flanker = different.

  Lavie and Cox (1997) - manipulating perceptual load

  2 conditions

  Low perceptual load

  Target is immediately visible - no search is required

  Attentional resources "spill over" to flanking letter (the irrelevant channel)

  
  

  High perceptual load

  Target hidden among neutral distractors (isn't associated with a response) - search for target required.

  Central circle (the relevant channel) consumes all attentional resources

  No spillover to irrelevant channel.

  
  

  Lavie and Cox (1997) - predicted outcomes :

  Hypothesis: compatibility effect for low perceptual load trials, but not for high perceptual load trials.

  What's a "compatibility effect"?

  Difference in reaction times/error rates between incompatible trials (e.g. target X and flanker N) and compatible trials (e.g. target X and flanker X)

  
  

  Lavie + Cox (1997) - result:

  Low perceptual load condition

  Was a large compatibility effect

  Average of 40ms difference

  Suggests the flanker in the irrelevant channel has been identified.

  
  

  High perceptual load condition:

  Was a small compatibility effect

  Average of 4ms difference

  Suggests the flanker in the irrelevant channel hasn't been identified.

  Lavie + Cox (1997) - conclusion:

  Results suggest there's a stronger compatibility effect in the easier condition

  Suggests that perceptual load for relevant channel influences the extent, to which information in the irrelevant channel is processed

  Where there's a high perceptual load: information in irrelevant channel isn't identified.

  Where there's a low perceptual load: information
• Lachter vs Lavie


  Both suggest there's no identification w/o attention, are early selection theories

  Lachter - results explained by slippage to the irrelevant channel

  If attention properly focused, no slippage

  :. processing of irrelevant channel is avoidable.
• what is leakage? Treisman 1960/1964

  the filter doesn't block information from the irrelevant channel - it attenuates it

  information from the irrelevant channel "leaks" through the filter

  attenuated information can activate concepts in LTM --> identification of stimuli
• slippage and spillover


  you can't aim water (attentional resources) precisely enough - at least not all the time.

  it isn't possible to focus on the relevant channel at all times

  consequence = if attention isn't properly focused - attention will slip to the irrelevant channel.
• evidence for slippage


  early selection theories assume there's no identification without attention

  - is only analysed with attention

  - if the stimuli in the irrelevant channel have been identified = then been attended
• evidence for slippage - early selection theory

  the meaning is analysed before input is filter (identification can't occur without attention)

  the process of meaning

  - automatic - not under voluntary control

  - not capacity limited - everything is fully analysed
• Lachter et al 2004

  - over 40 years researchers assumed there's identification without attention

  There's a need to reinterpret old experiments + conduct new experiments
• Own name effect and working memory capacity - Conway et al 2001

  - tested a group with high working memory capacity + one with low working memory capacity

  1. Group A (light bar) - 20% noticed their own name

  2. Group B (dark bar) - 65% noticed their own name.
• results of Conway et al 2001

  the high working memory capacity group (A) - 20% noticed their own name

  the low WMC group (dark bar) - 65% noticed their own name
• conclusion of own name effect & working memory capacity

  - the own name effect depended on working-memory capacity

  ppts with low working memory noticed their name most frequently (Conway et al 2001)

  ppts with low working memory experienced difficulties focusing their attention (Colflesh + Conway 2007)

  - so low WMC subjects more likely to let attention slip to the irrelevant channel

  - ppts with high WMC better able to control their attention

  So the own name effect is real & an attentional problem.
• channel switching


  - revised Treisman 1960 study

  - could happen when subjects get confused when a semantically coherent message suddenly becomes incoherent

  - to resolve the ambiguity - maybe participants reallocate their attention = would be a form of slippage
• Dawson & Schell 1962 (replicating the electric shock conditioning study)

  Ppts were trained to pair certain words with an electric shock

  Those words were then presented to the unattended channel.

  Ppts showed changes in skin conductance to words (although they were "unattended)
• Dawson & Schell 1962 (replicating the electric shock conditioning study) - RESULTS

  - Found skin conductance changes, but in subjects who:

  Failed to shadow relevant channel

  Recalled material from irrelevant channel

  Suggests there may be slippage of attentional resources + some participants do attend the irrelevant channel.
• Lachter et al:


  Hypothesis: "If we can exclude slippage, there will be no identification w/o attention.

  How did they exclude slippage?

  Used visual stimuli and presented relevant and irrelevant stimuli in different locations.

  Presented the stimuli in irrelevant locations v briefly (55ms)
• How does Lachter et al exclude slippage?

  - shifts of attention need time - it isn't possible to shift attention to an irrelevant location in 55 ms.
• repitition priming - Lachter et al

  In priming experiments - an irrelevant prime word (lower case) = presented shortly before the target word (upper case)

  Ppts make a button press to indicate if the word in upper case is an actual word or pseudo-word

  If a prime word = same as the target word (upper case) = can speed up responses to the target word.