Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.

BACKGROUND: When two targets are presented in close temporal succession, the majority of people frequently fail to report the second target. This phenomenon, known as the 'attentional blink' (AB), has been a major topic in attention research for the past twenty years because it is informat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Charlotte Willems, Stefan M Wierda, Eva van Viegen, Sander Martens
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3670894?pdf=render
id doaj-c6e093ac42834222a9aa1925bae466f8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c6e093ac42834222a9aa1925bae466f82020-11-25T01:29:51ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0186e6618510.1371/journal.pone.0066185Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.Charlotte WillemsStefan M WierdaEva van ViegenSander MartensBACKGROUND: When two targets are presented in close temporal succession, the majority of people frequently fail to report the second target. This phenomenon, known as the 'attentional blink' (AB), has been a major topic in attention research for the past twenty years because it is informative about the rate at which stimuli can be encoded into consciously accessible representations. An aspect of the AB that has long been ignored, however, is individual differences. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we compare a group of blinkers (who show an AB) and non-blinkers (who show little or no AB), and investigate the boundary conditions of the non-blinkers' remarkable ability. Second, we directly test the properties of temporal selection by analysing response errors, allowing us to uncover individual differences in suppression, delay, and diffusion of selective attention across time. Thirdly, we test the hypothesis that information concerning temporal order is compromised when an AB is somehow avoided. Surprisingly, compared to earlier studies, only a modest amount of suppression was found for blinkers. Non-blinkers showed no suppression, were more precise in selecting the second target, and made less order reversals than blinkers did. In contrast, non-blinkers made relatively more intrusions and showed a selection delay when the second target immediately followed the first target (at lag 1). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The findings shed new light on the mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in selective attention. The notable ability of non-blinkers to accurately perceive targets presented in close temporal succession might be due to a relatively faster and more precise target selection process compared to large blinkers.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3670894?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Charlotte Willems
Stefan M Wierda
Eva van Viegen
Sander Martens
spellingShingle Charlotte Willems
Stefan M Wierda
Eva van Viegen
Sander Martens
Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Charlotte Willems
Stefan M Wierda
Eva van Viegen
Sander Martens
author_sort Charlotte Willems
title Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
title_short Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
title_full Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
title_fullStr Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
title_full_unstemmed Individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
title_sort individual differences in the attentional blink: the temporal profile of blinkers and non-blinkers.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2013-01-01
description BACKGROUND: When two targets are presented in close temporal succession, the majority of people frequently fail to report the second target. This phenomenon, known as the 'attentional blink' (AB), has been a major topic in attention research for the past twenty years because it is informative about the rate at which stimuli can be encoded into consciously accessible representations. An aspect of the AB that has long been ignored, however, is individual differences. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we compare a group of blinkers (who show an AB) and non-blinkers (who show little or no AB), and investigate the boundary conditions of the non-blinkers' remarkable ability. Second, we directly test the properties of temporal selection by analysing response errors, allowing us to uncover individual differences in suppression, delay, and diffusion of selective attention across time. Thirdly, we test the hypothesis that information concerning temporal order is compromised when an AB is somehow avoided. Surprisingly, compared to earlier studies, only a modest amount of suppression was found for blinkers. Non-blinkers showed no suppression, were more precise in selecting the second target, and made less order reversals than blinkers did. In contrast, non-blinkers made relatively more intrusions and showed a selection delay when the second target immediately followed the first target (at lag 1). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The findings shed new light on the mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in selective attention. The notable ability of non-blinkers to accurately perceive targets presented in close temporal succession might be due to a relatively faster and more precise target selection process compared to large blinkers.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3670894?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT charlottewillems individualdifferencesintheattentionalblinkthetemporalprofileofblinkersandnonblinkers
AT stefanmwierda individualdifferencesintheattentionalblinkthetemporalprofileofblinkersandnonblinkers
AT evavanviegen individualdifferencesintheattentionalblinkthetemporalprofileofblinkersandnonblinkers
AT sandermartens individualdifferencesintheattentionalblinkthetemporalprofileofblinkersandnonblinkers
_version_ 1725094239870648320