Suppr超能文献

注意力转换与双任务干扰。

Attentional switches and dual-task interference.

作者信息

Ettwig Janne F, Bronkhorst Adelbert W

机构信息

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; TNO, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2015 Mar 2;10(3):e0118216. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118216. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

In four experiments, we studied the time course of interference between detection of an oddball orientation target (OT) in an 8-item circular search display, and identification of a letter target (LT) in a central stream of distractor letters. Dual-task performance for different temporal lags between targets was compared to single-task performance. When the LT preceded the OT, dual-task performance levels were reduced at short inter-target intervals of 0 and 166 ms; when the OT preceded the LT, the dual-task interference was unexpectedly stronger and lasted for up to 500 ms. Resource competition due to temporally overlapping target processing cannot account for this result, because the feature search task is easier than the letter identification task, and therefore would have generated less interference when presented first. Two alternative explanations were explored. First, by manipulating the spatial inter-target distance, we investigated to what degree there is a penalty associated with directing the attentional window from a large object (the search display) to a smaller object (the central letter stream). Second, by varying the duration of the OT and subsequent mask, we studied whether the interference was caused by the difficulty of disengaging attention from the search display. Results support this second explanation and thus indicate that switching attention to the letter stream is hampered by the continuing presence of (masked) search display items. This result shows that attentional effects may play a major role in dual-task execution and can easily obscure interference due to other factors such as resource competition.

摘要

在四项实验中,我们研究了在一个包含8个项目的圆形搜索显示中检测异常方向目标(OT)与在分心字母的中央流中识别字母目标(LT)之间干扰的时间进程。将不同目标间时间滞后下的双任务表现与单任务表现进行了比较。当LT先于OT出现时,在0和166毫秒的短目标间间隔下双任务表现水平降低;当OT先于LT出现时,双任务干扰出乎意料地更强,且持续长达500毫秒。由于目标处理在时间上重叠导致的资源竞争无法解释这一结果,因为特征搜索任务比字母识别任务更容易,因此当首先呈现时会产生较少的干扰。我们探讨了两种替代解释。首先,通过操纵目标间的空间距离,我们研究了将注意力窗口从大物体(搜索显示)转移到小物体(中央字母流)会在多大程度上受到惩罚。其次,通过改变OT及其后续掩蔽的持续时间,我们研究了干扰是否由难以将注意力从搜索显示上脱离引起。结果支持了第二种解释,因此表明对字母流的注意力切换受到(掩蔽的)搜索显示项目持续存在的阻碍。这一结果表明,注意力效应可能在双任务执行中起主要作用,并且很容易掩盖由于其他因素(如资源竞争)导致的干扰。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d7e1/4346395/3a5c79e9bc9e/pone.0118216.g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Attentional switches and dual-task interference.
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 2;10(3):e0118216. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118216. eCollection 2015.
4
Attentional requirements on feature search are modulated by stimulus properties.
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53093. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053093. Epub 2013 Jan 7.
5
The Attentional Boost Effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task.
Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):118-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.003. Epub 2010 Jan 18.
7
A salient and task-irrelevant collinear structure hurts visual search.
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 24;10(4):e0124190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124190. eCollection 2015.
8
Rapid guidance of visual search by object categories.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Feb;40(1):50-60. doi: 10.1037/a0033228. Epub 2013 Jun 24.
9
A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency.
Vision Res. 2010 Jun 25;50(14):1402-13. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.12.002. Epub 2009 Dec 16.
10
Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search.
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Oct;79(7):2037-2043. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1367-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Test-retest reliability of kinematic and kinetic parameters during dual-task stair walking in the elderly.
Front Physiol. 2023 May 9;14:1177159. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1177159. eCollection 2023.
2
Steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) based brain-computer interface (BCI) performance under different perturbations.
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 23;13(1):e0191673. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191673. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Are attentional dwell times inconsistent with serial visual search?
Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Sep;3(3):360-5. doi: 10.3758/BF03210761.
2
Looming motion primes the visuomotor system.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Apr;40(2):566-79. doi: 10.1037/a0034456. Epub 2013 Oct 7.
3
Attentional requirements on feature search are modulated by stimulus properties.
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53093. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053093. Epub 2013 Jan 7.
4
Bodily movement of approach is detected faster than that of receding.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):858-63. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0284-0.
5
Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Oct;135(2):77-99. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006. Epub 2010 May 26.
6
Objects on a collision path with the observer demand attention.
Psychol Sci. 2008 Jul;19(7):686-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02143.x.
7
Multiple resources and mental workload.
Hum Factors. 2008 Jun;50(3):449-55. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288394.
9
Moving and looming stimuli capture attention.
Percept Psychophys. 2003 Oct;65(7):999-1010. doi: 10.3758/bf03194829.
10
Persistent fear responses in rhesus monkeys to the optical stimulus of "looming".
Science. 1962 Jun 15;136(3520):982-3. doi: 10.1126/science.136.3520.982.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验