TY - JOUR
T1 - Sparing from the attentional blink is not spared from structural limitations
AU - Dell'Acqua, R.
AU - Dux, P. E.
AU - Wyble, B.
AU - Jolicœur, P.
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to J. Hopfinger, V. Di Lollo, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on previous drafts of this article. We also thank N. Taatgen for providing simulations and comments regarding the function of his model. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant and APD Fellowship awarded to P.E.D. (Grant DP0986387). The empirical data collected in the present study can be downloaded from http://colab.psy.unipd.it by following the link to R.D.A.’s personal page. The boost-and-bounce model (Olivers & Meeter, ) is available in Excel format at http://olivers.cogpsy.nl . The threaded cognition model (Taatgen et al., ) is available as LISP code at http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/models . The eSTST model (Wyble et al., ) is available as MATLAB code at www.bradwyble.com/research/models/eSTST . Instructions on how to adjust the parameters of each model so as to generate simulated output based on the duration and sensory strength of RSVP items and on RSVP temporal structure can be found at the relevant Web sites.
PY - 2012/4
Y1 - 2012/4
N2 - When a series of three successive to-be-reported items (targets) is displayed in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors, it has been shown that no attentional blink-a marked impairment in the report of the second of two targets, typically observed when the targets appear within 200-600 ms of one another-occurs in target accuracy. The present study examines three recently introduced computational models that provide different explanations of this protracted sparing effect. Using a standard RSVP design and these models, we provide empirical data and simulations that illustrate that structural limitations affect the processing of successive targets. In addition, we compare the candidate mechanisms that might underlie these limitations.
AB - When a series of three successive to-be-reported items (targets) is displayed in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors, it has been shown that no attentional blink-a marked impairment in the report of the second of two targets, typically observed when the targets appear within 200-600 ms of one another-occurs in target accuracy. The present study examines three recently introduced computational models that provide different explanations of this protracted sparing effect. Using a standard RSVP design and these models, we provide empirical data and simulations that illustrate that structural limitations affect the processing of successive targets. In addition, we compare the candidate mechanisms that might underlie these limitations.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84858392902
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84858392902#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.3758/s13423-011-0209-3
DO - 10.3758/s13423-011-0209-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 22215469
AN - SCOPUS:84858392902
SN - 1069-9384
VL - 19
SP - 232
EP - 238
JO - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
JF - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
IS - 2
ER -