Attentional control and capture in the attentional blink paradigm: Evidence from human electrophysiology

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 560-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Jolicœur ◽  
Paola Sessa ◽  
Roberto Dell'Acqua ◽  
Nicolas Robitaille
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Obana ◽  
Stephen Wee Hun Lim ◽  
Christopher L. Asplund

Our attention is often captured by unexpected or unusual sounds. Such stimulus- driven control of attention can be adaptive, as potentially relevant events need to be quickly evaluated and acted upon. Attentional capture, however, comes with a cost: Ongoing tasks may be disrupted. In a series of seven experiments (n=773), we investigated the effects of task-irrelevant, rare, and relatively unexpected sounds (“surprise stimuli”) on probe detection in rapid auditory presentation (RAP) streams. Surprise stimuli caused “Surprise-induced Deafness” (SiD), a severe detection deficit that lasted for under one second within each trial and gradually habituated across several trials. SiD was sensitive to informational “surprise”, with larger deficits following stimuli that were infrequent or varied across trials. The effect also generalized: Natural sounds or constructed stimuli could disrupt detection of either spoken letters or simple tones. We also compared SiD to the auditory attentional blink (AAB), a similar paradigm in which goal-directed target processing disrupts probe detection. We found that the two deficits were weakly correlated. We conclude that SiD is a novel perceptual deficit that primarily reflects stimulus-driven attentional capture. It may involve other forms of attentional control as well, thereby reflecting multiple attentional influences on awareness.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 1197
Author(s):  
Rakesh Sengupta ◽  
Omar Abid ◽  
Asheer Bachoo ◽  
John Tsotsos

Author(s):  
Yuecui Kan ◽  
Xuewei Wang ◽  
Xitong Chen ◽  
Hanxuan Zhao ◽  
Jijun Lan ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Hazel Godfrey

<p>This thesis extends current understanding of cognitive deficits in people with chronic pain, specifically those related to attention. Researchers have proposed that attentional capacity is allocated to pain sensation, and away from current tasks and goals, leading to broad cognitive deficits (deficit-view). However, an attentional bias to pain-related information has also been observed in people with chronic pain, suggesting that attention is motivated towards information in the environment that is pain-related, and away from information that is not. Such an attentional bias away from information not related to pain may contribute to the cognitive deficits observed on tasks using neutral stimuli (motivated attention hypothesis). In testing the deficit-view and motivated attention accounts of cognitive deficits in chronic pain, I focused on how people attend to rapidly presented information (temporal attention) and the ability to control attention in the face of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects temporal attention, I used a phenomenon known as the attentional blink, which is a failure to detect a second target that appears soon after a first. Participants viewed a stream of briefly displayed words in which two target words (indicated by their colour) were embedded, with a manipulation of the time between the first and second target. They were required to report the two targets. In one experiment the first target was either pain-related or neutral (to assess how pain-relatedness affects the induction of the blink), and in other experiments this manipulation was applied to the second target (to assess how pain-relatedness affects how targets overcome the blink).   In undergraduate participants, both induction and overcoming of the attentional blink was modulated by pain-relatedness. I then compared the effects of manipulating the second target in people with and without chronic pain. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in temporal attention, a deeper attentional blink (relative to control participants) for both kinds of targets should be observed. If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, a shallower attentional blink for pain related targets than neutral targets (an attentional bias) should be observed. Critically, this bias should be larger in participants with chronic pain. Contrary to both the deficit and motivated attention views, the attentional blink in participants with chronic pain did not differ from that in controls for either pain-related or neutral targets. Furthermore, neither group showed an attentional bias for pain-related targets, and a follow-up experiment failed to replicate the attentional bias observed in undergraduate students as well. Collectively, these findings suggested that attentional bias, as assessed by modulation of the attentional blink, was not reliable. A stronger test of the deficit-view and motivated attention hypothesis was needed. I shifted focus to another attentional domain, the control of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects attentional control, I used an emotional distraction task, in which participants identified a target letter in an array that flanked irrelevant distractor images that were either intact or scrambled. Intact images depicted either extreme threat to body-tissue, or benign scenes. Distraction is indicated by slowing on intact relative to scrambled distractor trials. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in attentional control, they should show greater distraction from both kinds of images (relative to controls). If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, greater distraction from body-threat images than neutral images (relative to controls) should be observed. While all participants were more distracted by images depicting extreme threat to body-tissue, people with chronic pain were not more distracted than control participants for either image type. Findings fail to support either a deficit or motivated attention view of attentional control in chronic pain.  Although these experiments do not provide evidence that chronic pain affects attentional processing, across experiments people with chronic pain reported that they experience deficits in attention, and they showed behavioural evidence of psychomotor slowing. These findings suggest that, as is repeatedly reported in the literature, people in chronic pain feel like they have attentional deficits, and that some aspects of cognitive and/or motor processing are impacted. Careful consideration is given to what specific cognitive functions might be impaired in chronic pain. The outcome of this discussion suggests pertinent research directions to further understanding of cognition in chronic pain experience.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1510-1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenza S. Colzato ◽  
Roberta Sellaro ◽  
Claudia Rossi Paccani ◽  
Bernhard Hommel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Hazel Godfrey

<p>This thesis extends current understanding of cognitive deficits in people with chronic pain, specifically those related to attention. Researchers have proposed that attentional capacity is allocated to pain sensation, and away from current tasks and goals, leading to broad cognitive deficits (deficit-view). However, an attentional bias to pain-related information has also been observed in people with chronic pain, suggesting that attention is motivated towards information in the environment that is pain-related, and away from information that is not. Such an attentional bias away from information not related to pain may contribute to the cognitive deficits observed on tasks using neutral stimuli (motivated attention hypothesis). In testing the deficit-view and motivated attention accounts of cognitive deficits in chronic pain, I focused on how people attend to rapidly presented information (temporal attention) and the ability to control attention in the face of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects temporal attention, I used a phenomenon known as the attentional blink, which is a failure to detect a second target that appears soon after a first. Participants viewed a stream of briefly displayed words in which two target words (indicated by their colour) were embedded, with a manipulation of the time between the first and second target. They were required to report the two targets. In one experiment the first target was either pain-related or neutral (to assess how pain-relatedness affects the induction of the blink), and in other experiments this manipulation was applied to the second target (to assess how pain-relatedness affects how targets overcome the blink).   In undergraduate participants, both induction and overcoming of the attentional blink was modulated by pain-relatedness. I then compared the effects of manipulating the second target in people with and without chronic pain. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in temporal attention, a deeper attentional blink (relative to control participants) for both kinds of targets should be observed. If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, a shallower attentional blink for pain related targets than neutral targets (an attentional bias) should be observed. Critically, this bias should be larger in participants with chronic pain. Contrary to both the deficit and motivated attention views, the attentional blink in participants with chronic pain did not differ from that in controls for either pain-related or neutral targets. Furthermore, neither group showed an attentional bias for pain-related targets, and a follow-up experiment failed to replicate the attentional bias observed in undergraduate students as well. Collectively, these findings suggested that attentional bias, as assessed by modulation of the attentional blink, was not reliable. A stronger test of the deficit-view and motivated attention hypothesis was needed. I shifted focus to another attentional domain, the control of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects attentional control, I used an emotional distraction task, in which participants identified a target letter in an array that flanked irrelevant distractor images that were either intact or scrambled. Intact images depicted either extreme threat to body-tissue, or benign scenes. Distraction is indicated by slowing on intact relative to scrambled distractor trials. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in attentional control, they should show greater distraction from both kinds of images (relative to controls). If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, greater distraction from body-threat images than neutral images (relative to controls) should be observed. While all participants were more distracted by images depicting extreme threat to body-tissue, people with chronic pain were not more distracted than control participants for either image type. Findings fail to support either a deficit or motivated attention view of attentional control in chronic pain.  Although these experiments do not provide evidence that chronic pain affects attentional processing, across experiments people with chronic pain reported that they experience deficits in attention, and they showed behavioural evidence of psychomotor slowing. These findings suggest that, as is repeatedly reported in the literature, people in chronic pain feel like they have attentional deficits, and that some aspects of cognitive and/or motor processing are impacted. Careful consideration is given to what specific cognitive functions might be impaired in chronic pain. The outcome of this discussion suggests pertinent research directions to further understanding of cognition in chronic pain experience.</p>


2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 1807-1807
Author(s):  
Lorenza S. Colzato ◽  
Roberta Sellaro ◽  
Claudia Rossi Paccani ◽  
Bernhard Hommel

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Divita Singh ◽  
Meera Mary Sunny

Emotion Induced Blindness (EIB) is characterized by an impairment in the detection of a neutral target image when it appears between 100-500ms after the presentation of an emotional image. EIB has been argued to be an early level perceptual impairment resulting from spatio-temporal competition between the neutral target and the emotional distractor. While the role of attentional processes is implied in EIB, there hasn’t been a systematic comparison between EIB and Attentional Blink (AB) concerning the locus of attentional control. That is, in most of the AB studies, participants are required to identify and report T1 while in EIB studies they are asked to ignore the emotional distractor. Hence, the differences between AB and EIB may stem from this difference in attentional control. In Expt. 1 and Expt. 2 participants were asked to report two targets in an RSVP stream and we found similar impairment in both the experiments, irrespective of the emotional nature of the target. However, in Expt. 3 and 4 where participants were required to report only one target, only the emotional distractor captured attention, leading to an impairment in target detection. Our result shows that target impairment in EIB is due to the exogenous attentional allocation to the emotional image. i.e., distractor image being emotionally salient captures attention in a bottom-up manner leading to the impairment in the less salient target.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 158-158
Author(s):  
D. Engelhardt ◽  
S. B. Most ◽  
J. E. Reiss ◽  
J. E. Hoffman ◽  
M. Doran ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 1559 ◽  
pp. 33-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Jetté Pomerleau ◽  
Ulysse Fortier-Gauthier ◽  
Isabelle Corriveau ◽  
John J. McDonald ◽  
Roberto Dell’Acqua ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document