Load theory of selective attention and the role of perceptual load: Is it time for revision?

Background: It has been controversial in the face recognition literaturę whether face-sensitive N170 is affected by selective attention. Attention was manipulated according to Lavie’s perceptual load theory, examining the effect of selective attention on the processing of faces and human bodies. Faces and human bodies were presented either intact or manipulated. Material/Methods: 18 Students (9Males) from Sohag University, aged between 19 and 22 years (M = 19.38, SD = 0.48) contributed data in this study. All participants were right handed, and had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity. Participants were instructed to detect specific letter strings „X or N” among different (i.e., High load), or identical (Low load) letters. Letters were superimposed on different distractors. Stimuli were presented intact (Exp.1), or manipulated (Exp.2-4), by removing certain features or parts in the face and body respectively. ERP technique was used and prominent N170 and LNC were measured. Results: It was found that there is no effect of selective attention on the face sensitive N170. It seems that cropped face N170 is not affected by selective attention. However, the N170 of faces and human bodies are not affected by selective attention. The LNC findings showed that this component is affected by selective attention with enhanced negativity under low load Conditions compared to high load conditions. Conclusions: The findings of the current study showed that either cropped faces and human bodies does not reveal sensitivity on the N170 ERP component of manipulated faces and bodies.

Download Full-text

The role of perceptual load in auditory selective attention

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e636952013-325 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Sandra Murphy ◽

Nick Fraenkel ◽

Polly Dalton

Keyword(s):

Selective Attention ◽

Perceptual Load ◽

Auditory Selective Attention

Download Full-text

The effects of interstimulus interval on event-related indices of attention: An auditory selective attention test of perceptual load theory

Clinical Neurophysiology ◽

10.1016/j.clinph.2007.11.014 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 119 (3) ◽

pp. 542-555 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Hilary Gomes ◽

Sophia Barrett ◽

Martin Duff ◽

Jack Barnhardt ◽

Walter Ritter

Keyword(s):

Selective Attention ◽

Interstimulus Interval ◽

Perceptual Load ◽

Auditory Selective Attention ◽

Load Theory

Download Full-text

The role of perceptual load and sensory degradation on cross-modal selective attention

10.32920/ryerson.14662104 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Rajwant Sandhu

Keyword(s):

Selective Attention ◽

Attentional Control ◽

Perceptual Load ◽

Task Demands ◽

Single Experiment ◽

Main Determinant ◽

Distractor Processing ◽

The Cross ◽

The Impact

To understand our sensory environment, our perceptual system must employ selective attention; the ability to attend to target information while ignoring distracting information. In the uni–modal domain the main determinant of selective attention success is capacity limitation, where only when processing capacity is taxed by the target (high load; HL) is distraction eliminated (perceptual load theory; PLT). Conversely, data limits while also increasing task demands, do not benefit selective attention as these limits are often driven by sensory degradation (SD) such that placing additional resources towards the target is not beneficial. Investigations of PLT to the cross–modal domain have produced mixed results, and no study has yet directly contrasted the impact of capacity and data limits in the cross–modal domain. The present dissertation focused on examining the impact of Perceptual Load (PL) and SD on cross–modal selective attention, in addition to examining how these factors would interact with the attended modality and individual differences (ID) in attentional control. Experiment 1 used a go–no–go manipulation of PL to show that distractor effects were not reduced at HL compared to low load (LL) condition and instead displayed trends for increased distraction under HL regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 2 used the addition of noise to create SD, and found that distractor processing increased under SD, again regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 1 and 2 used a uni–modal measure of attentional control, and overall both studies did not find a consistent pattern of correlation with cross–modal selective attention, suggesting important differences between the two. Experiment 3 used a single manipulation to create HL and SD conditions in a single experiment, and also found that both HL and SD showed trends of increased distraction relative to LL conditions. Overall the current dissertation suggests that capacity limitations arise at the modality level, and so do not impact cross–modal selective attention. As such, the findings of the current dissertation suggest there is no difference between capacity and data limited conditions in the cross–modal domain. Results are interpreted within a cross–modal selective attention framework.

Download Full-text

Short article: The role of working memory in tactile selective attention

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology ◽

10.1080/17470210802483503 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 62 (4) ◽

pp. 635-644 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Polly Dalton ◽

Nilli Lavie ◽

Charles Spence

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Selective Attention ◽

Memory Task ◽

Short Article ◽

Load Theory ◽

Low Load ◽

Irrelevant Distractors ◽

Tactile Modality ◽

First Time

Load theory suggests that working memory controls the extent to which irrelevant distractors are processed (e.g., Lavie, Hirst, De Fockert, & Viding, 2004). However, so far this proposal has only been tested in vision. Here, we examine the extent to which tactile selective attention also depends on working memory. In Experiment 1, participants focused their attention on continuous target vibrations while attempting to ignore pulsed distractor vibrations. In Experiment 2, targets were always presented to a particular hand, with distractors being presented to the other hand. In both experiments, a high (vs. low) load in a concurrent working memory task led to greater interference by the tactile distractors. These results establish the role of working memory in the control of tactile selective attention, demonstrating for the first time that the principles of load theory also apply to the tactile modality.

Download Full-text

The role of perceptual load and sensory degradation on cross-modal selective attention

10.32920/ryerson.14662104.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Rajwant Sandhu

Keyword(s):

Selective Attention ◽

Attentional Control ◽

Perceptual Load ◽

Task Demands ◽

Single Experiment ◽

Main Determinant ◽

Distractor Processing ◽

The Cross ◽

The Impact

To understand our sensory environment, our perceptual system must employ selective attention; the ability to attend to target information while ignoring distracting information. In the uni–modal domain the main determinant of selective attention success is capacity limitation, where only when processing capacity is taxed by the target (high load; HL) is distraction eliminated (perceptual load theory; PLT). Conversely, data limits while also increasing task demands, do not benefit selective attention as these limits are often driven by sensory degradation (SD) such that placing additional resources towards the target is not beneficial. Investigations of PLT to the cross–modal domain have produced mixed results, and no study has yet directly contrasted the impact of capacity and data limits in the cross–modal domain. The present dissertation focused on examining the impact of Perceptual Load (PL) and SD on cross–modal selective attention, in addition to examining how these factors would interact with the attended modality and individual differences (ID) in attentional control. Experiment 1 used a go–no–go manipulation of PL to show that distractor effects were not reduced at HL compared to low load (LL) condition and instead displayed trends for increased distraction under HL regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 2 used the addition of noise to create SD, and found that distractor processing increased under SD, again regardless of the attended modality. Experiment 1 and 2 used a uni–modal measure of attentional control, and overall both studies did not find a consistent pattern of correlation with cross–modal selective attention, suggesting important differences between the two. Experiment 3 used a single manipulation to create HL and SD conditions in a single experiment, and also found that both HL and SD showed trends of increased distraction relative to LL conditions. Overall the current dissertation suggests that capacity limitations arise at the modality level, and so do not impact cross–modal selective attention. As such, the findings of the current dissertation suggest there is no difference between capacity and data limited conditions in the cross–modal domain. Results are interpreted within a cross–modal selective attention framework.

Download Full-text