title: An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts.
abstract: Several accounts of the attentional blink (AB) have postulated that this dual-target deficit occurs because of limited-capacity attentional resources being devoted to processing the first target at the expense of the second (resource depletion accounts; e.g., Chun & Potter, 1995). Recent accounts have challenged this model (e.g., Di Lollo, Kawahara, Ghorashi, & Enns, 2005; Olivers, van der Stigchel, & Hulleman, 2007), proposing instead that the AB occurs because of subjects' inability to maintain appropriate levels of attentional controlwhen targets are separated by distractors. Accordingly, the AB is eliminated when three targets from the same attentional set are presented sequentially in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream. However, under such conditions poorer identification of the first target is typically observed, hinting at a potential trade-off between the first and subsequent target performances. Consistent with this hypothesis, the present study shows that an AB is observed for successive targets from the same attentional set in an RSVP stream when the first target powerfully captures attention. These results suggest that resource depletion contributes significantly to the AB.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Tennessee 37203, USA. paul.dux@vanderbilt.edu
authors.forename: Paul E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Dux
authors.forename: Christopher L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Asplund
authors.forename: René
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Marois
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D054518:Attentional Blink; D003118:Color Perception; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011930:Reaction Time; D012691:Serial Learning; D012718:Set, Psychology; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Dec;24(6):1656-74
references.pmid: 9861716
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Oct;13(5):886-90
references.pmid: 17328390
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1987 Aug;42(2):105-13
references.pmid: 3627930
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):125-31
references.pmid: 16724779
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Science. 1987 Nov 6;238(4828):778-80
references.pmid: 3672124
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2007 Mar;71(2):126-39
references.pmid: 16341546
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Aug;18(3):849-60
references.pmid: 1500880
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2006 Nov;70(6):405-13
references.pmid: 16344995
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):109-27
references.pmid: 7707027
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1998 Sep;26(5):1014-32
references.pmid: 9796233
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2005 Jan;69(3):191-200
references.pmid: 15597184
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1969 Jul;81(1):10-5
references.pmid: 5812164
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1997 Nov;1(8):291-6
references.pmid: 21223931
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):114-22
references.pmid: 15686577