title: Distractor exclusion is not an early process: a reply to Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011).
abstract: In their comment, Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011) argue against our interpretation of the distractor frequency effect in terms of a late blocking mechanism. They state that the experiments reported by Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010) can be incorporated in WEAVER++ when assuming an early input blocking mechanism. We first rectify a misunderstanding regarding the claim of the target article. Next, we show that Roelofs et al. provide no evidence that allows differentiating between early and late blocking accounts. We end by providing evidence in favor of our claim that distractor blocking occurs late and specify our blocking account in terms of verbal self-monitoring.
authors: Elisah
authors: E
authors: Dhooge
authors: Robert J
authors: RJ
authors: Hartsuiker
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D005260:Female; D005364:Field Dependence-Independence; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D014825:Vocabulary