Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Interference from familiar natural distractors is not eliminated by high perceptual load

Abstract

A crucial prediction of perceptual load theory is that high perceptual load can eliminate interference from distractors. However, Lavie et al. (Psychol Sci 14:510–515, 2003) found that high perceptual load did not eliminate interference when the distractor was a face. The current experiments examined the interaction between familiarity and perceptual load in modulating interference in a name search task. The data reveal that high perceptual load eliminated the interference effect for unfamiliar distractors that were faces or objects, but did not eliminate the interference for familiar distractors that were faces or objects. Based on these results, we proposed that the processing of familiar and natural stimuli may be immune to the effect of perceptual load.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Bahrami, B., Carmel, D., Walsh, V., Rees, G., & Lavie, N. (2008). Unconscious orientation processing depends on perceptual load. Journal of Vision, 8, 10–12.

  2. Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A. P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 427–437.

  3. Brand-D’Abrescia, M., & Lavie, N. (2007). Distractor effects during processing of words under load. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(6), 1153–1157.

  4. Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition, 102, 321–340.

  5. Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Specialization within the ventral stream: The case for the visual word form area. Neuroimage, 22, 466–476.

  6. Cohen, L., Martinaud, O., Lemer, C., Lehéricy, S., Samson, Y., Obadia, M., et al. (2003). Visual word recognition in the left and right hemispheres: Anatomical and functional correlates of peripheral alexias. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 1313–1333.

  7. Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., & Fox, E. (2005). Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 876–885.

  8. Fang, F., & He, S. (2005). Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1380–1385.

  9. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal: Eliminating individual differences in distractibility with load. Psychological Science, 18, 377–381.

  10. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73–83.

  11. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20–25.

  12. Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S., & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349, 154–156.

  13. Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2009). When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration. Visual Cognition, 17, 120–140.

  14. James, T. W., Culham, J., Humphrey, G. K., Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: An fMRI study. Brain, 126, 2463–2475.

  15. Johnson, D. N., McGrath, A., & McNeil, C. (2002). Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychological Science, 13, 284–287.

  16. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.

  17. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451–468.

  18. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82.

  19. Lavie, N. (2006). The role of perceptual load in visual awareness. Brain Research, 1080, 91–100.

  20. Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of attentional selection: Efficient visual search results in inefficient rejection of distraction. Psychological Science, 8, 395–398.

  21. Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 202–212.

  22. Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1038–1052.

  23. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.

  24. Lavie, N., Ro, T., & Russell, C. (2003). The role of perceptual load in processing distractor faces. Psychological Science, 14, 510–515.

  25. Lavie, N., & Robertson, I. H. (2001). The role of perceptual load in neglect: Rejection of ipsilesional distractors is facilitated with higher central load. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 867–876.

  26. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 183–197.

  27. Maurer, U., Brem, S., Bucher, K., & Brandeis, D. (2005). Emerging neurophysiological specialization for letter strings. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1532–1552.

  28. Muggleton, N., Lamb, R., Walsh, V., & Lavie, N. (2008). Perceptual load modulates visual cortex excitability to magnetic stimulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 516–519.

  29. Paquet, L. (2001). Eliminating flanker effects and negative priming in the flankers task: Evidence for early selection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 301–306.

  30. Paquet, L., & Craig, G. L. (1997). Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task. Memory and Cognition, 25, 182–189.

  31. Pylyshyn, Z., Burkell, J., Fisher, B., Sears, C., Schmidt, W., & Trick, L. (1994). Multiple parallel access in visual attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 260–283.

  32. Wei, P., & Zhou, X. (2006). Processing multidimensional objects under different perceptual loads: The priority of bottom-up perceptual saliency. Brain Research, 1114, 113–124.

  33. Yantis, S., & Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 166–178.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The current study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 30700226), the Key Discipline Fund of National 211 Project (Grant No. NSKD08010), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 20080431271). Thanks are due to two anonymous reviewers and Bernhard Hommel for their helpful comments on an earlier draft, and to Robert West for his comments and language corrections.

Author information

Correspondence to Antao Chen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1155 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, C., Chen, A. Interference from familiar natural distractors is not eliminated by high perceptual load. Psychological Research 74, 268–276 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0252-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interference Effect
  • Congruency Effect
  • Congruent Trial
  • Perceptual Load
  • Response Time Data