Akyürek Elkan G, Hommel Bernhard
Leiden University, Department of Psychology, Cognitive Psychology Unit, Postbus 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005 Jul;119(3):305-14. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.02.006. Epub 2005 Apr 14.
If people monitor a visual stimulus stream for targets they often miss the second (T2) if it appears soon after the first (T1)--the attentional blink. There is one exception: T2 is often not missed if it appears right after T1, i.e., at lag 1. This lag-1 sparing is commonly attributed to the possibility that T1 processing opens an attentional gate, which may be so sluggish that an early T2 can slip in before it closes. We investigated why the gate may close and exclude further stimuli from processing. We compared a control approach, which assumes that gate closing is exogenously triggered by the appearance of nontargets, and an integration approach, which assumes that gate closing is under endogenous control. As predicted by the latter but not the former, T2 performance and target reversals were strongly affected by the temporal distance between T1 and T2, whereas the presence or the absence of a nontarget intervening between T1 and T2 had little impact.
如果人们在视觉刺激流中监测目标，他们常常会错过第二个目标（T2），如果它在第一个目标（T1）之后很快出现——这就是注意瞬脱。有一个例外：如果T2紧跟在T1之后出现，即在滞后1时出现，通常不会错过。这种滞后1时的幸免通常归因于T1加工打开了一个注意之门，这个门可能非常缓慢，以至于早期的T2可以在它关闭之前溜进去。我们研究了为什么这个门可能会关闭并排除进一步的刺激进行加工。我们比较了一种控制方法和一种整合方法，前者假设门的关闭是由非目标的出现外源性触发的，后者假设门的关闭是受内源性控制的。正如后者而非前者所预测的那样，T2的表现和目标反转受到T1和T2之间时间距离的强烈影响，而T1和T2之间是否存在非目标干预的影响很小。
