Advertisement

Flanker tasks based on congruency manipulation are biased measures of selective attention in perceptual load studies

  • Zhi LiEmail author
  • Jiafei Lou
Article

Abstract

Flanker tasks based on a flanker–target congruency manipulation are widely used in perceptual load studies to investigate under what circumstances task-irrelevant flankers may be processed. An implicit assumption underlying the congruency manipulation is that the three types of flankers (congruent, incongruent, and neutral) attract attention homogeneously. However, in the present study, we provide evidence to demonstrate that this assumption is wrong: We discovered that incongruent/congruent flankers attracted more attention than the neutral flanker did. To avoid this attentional bias induced by the flanker–target congruency manipulation, we developed a new flanker paradigm in which the extent of flanker processing was evaluated by comparing the threshold stimulus exposure durations (TSEDs) for successfully performing a target identification task when a task-irrelevant flanker was presented versus when the flanker was absent. The flanker was processed if the TSED was longer when the flanker was present than when it was absent. This new paradigm provides an unbiased measure of selective attention when neutral flankers are used. The present data, obtained with neutral flankers in the new paradigm, were consistent with the dilution theory of selective attention, but inconsistent with the perceptual load theory of selective attention.

Keywords

Selective attention Top-down control Load theory Dilution theory Activity distribution model 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, S. F., Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28, 1547–1562.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avital-Cohen, R., & Tsal, Y. (2016). Top-down processes override bottom-up interference in the flanker task. Psychological Science, 27, 651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London, UK: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Z., & Cave, K. R. (2016). Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the Go/No-go paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1072–1087.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., & Fox, E. (2005). Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 876–885.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030 Google Scholar
  13. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal. Psychological Science, 18, 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.73 Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, D. N., McGrath, A., & McNeil, C. (2002). Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychological Science, 13, 284–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 558–564.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8, 395–398.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00432.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 202–212.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183–197.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, Z., Xin, K., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2018). Reconceptualizing perceptual load as a rate problem: The role of time in the allocation of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 1458–1471.Google Scholar
  22. Lupyan, G. (2008). The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108, 566–577.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: Dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 915–932.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125–139.Google Scholar
  26. Scerrati, E., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (2017). Comparing Stroop-like and Simon effects on perceptual features. Scientific Reports, 7, 17815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., & Belopolsky, A. V. (2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 697–702.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645–1656.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018172 Google Scholar
  31. van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. NeuroImage, 14, 1302–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson, D. E., Muroi, M., & MacLeod, C. M. (2011). Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 319–335.Google Scholar
  33. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0058.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright, R. D., & Ward, L. M. (2008). Orienting of attention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Behavioral SciencesZhejiang University (Xixi Campus)HangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations