title: Attentional tuning resets after failures of perceptual awareness.
abstract: Key to successfully negotiating our environment is our ability to adapt to current settings based on recent experiences and behaviour. Response conflict paradigms (e.g., the Stroop task) have provided evidence for increases in executive control after errors, leading to slowed responses that are more likely to be correct, and less susceptible to response congruency effects. Here we investigate whether failures of perceptual awareness, rather than failures at decisional or response stages of information processing, lead to similar adjustments in visual attention. We employed an attentional blink task in which subjects often fail to consciously register the second of two targets embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of distractors, and examined how target errors influence performance on subsequent trials. Performance was inferior after Target 2 errors and these inter-trial effects were independent of the temporal lag between the targets and were not due to more global changes in attention across runs of trials. These results shed light on the nature of attentional calibration in response to failures of perceptual consciousness.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. paul.e.dux@gmail.com
authors.forename: Paul E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Dux
authors.forename: Warrick
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Roseboom
authors.forename: Christian N L
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Olivers
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D054518:Attentional Blink / Q000502:physiology; D001364:Awareness / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Dec;28(6):1345-63
references.pmid: 12542132
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Dec;12(3):467-73
references.pmid: 11689307
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Jun;35(3):835-54
references.pmid: 19485695
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb;21(2):243-51
references.pmid: 20424053
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2006 Jun;16(6):827-34
references.pmid: 16135781
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Aug;13(4):600-7
references.pmid: 17201358
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Jun;35(3):787-807
references.pmid: 19485692
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Dec;121(4):480-506
references.pmid: 1431740
references.citation: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 May;34(6):947-57
references.pmid: 20025902
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Nov 11;402(6758):179-81
references.pmid: 10647008
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Apr;16(4):265-9
references.pmid: 15828972
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Apr;35(2):338-51
references.pmid: 19331492
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):109-27
references.pmid: 7707027
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 1967 Jun;51(3):300-4
references.pmid: 6045637
references.citation: Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):443-7
references.pmid: 15486290
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Aug;15(4):809-13
references.pmid: 18792508
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):232-8
references.pmid: 22215469
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Apr;32(2):364-79
references.pmid: 16634676
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009;16(1):219-224
references.pmid: 19543438
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Aug;59(1):1-29
references.pmid: 19217086
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Mar;19(3):290-5
references.pmid: 18315803
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: Psychol Sci. 2004 Nov;15(11):720-8
references.pmid: 15482443
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):222-7
references.pmid: 16507062
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2012 Nov 1;63(2):674-86
references.pmid: 22796984
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1317-22
references.pmid: 23670884
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Feb;14(2):64-71
references.pmid: 20060771
references.citation: Science. 2000 Jun 9;288(5472):1835-8
references.pmid: 10846167
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2012 Oct;22(10):2346-53
references.pmid: 22079924
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Apr;13(2):328-33
references.pmid: 16893003
references.citation: Brain Res. 2011 Apr 28;1387:99-107
references.pmid: 21362413
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2001 Dec;14(6):1302-8
references.pmid: 11707086
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1994 Nov;22(6):657-72
references.pmid: 7808275
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Nov;71(8):1683-700
references.pmid: 19933555
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2007 Mar;71(2):126-39
references.pmid: 16341546
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Oct;115(4):836-63
references.pmid: 18954206
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jul;36(2):138-202
references.pmid: 9721199
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: Science. 2004 Feb 13;303(5660):1023-6
references.pmid: 14963333