The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing

Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. Perception is generally poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, while divided attention typically impairs performance, recent work s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Attention, perception & psychophysics perception & psychophysics, 2023-02, Vol.85 (2), p.377-386
Hauptverfasser: Harrison, Amelia H., Ling, Sam, Foster, Joshua J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 386
container_issue 2
container_start_page 377
container_title Attention, perception & psychophysics
container_volume 85
creator Harrison, Amelia H.
Ling, Sam
Foster, Joshua J.
description Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. Perception is generally poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, while divided attention typically impairs performance, recent work suggests that divided attention does not seem to impair detection of simple visual features. Here, we re-examined this possibility. In two experiments, observers detected a simple target (a vertical Gabor), and we manipulated whether attention was focused at one location (focal-cue condition) or distributed across two locations (distributed-cue condition). In Experiment 1, targets could appear independently at each location, such that observers needed to judge target presence for each location separately in the distributed-cue condition. Under these conditions, we found a robust cost of dividing attention. Next, we further probed what stage of processing gave rise to this cost. In Experiment 1, the cost of dividing attention could reflect a limit in the ability to make concurrent judgments about target presence. In Experiment 2, we simplified the task to test whether this was the case: just one target could appear on each trial, such that observers made a single judgment (“was a target present?”) in both the focal-cue and distributed-cue conditions. Here, we found a marginal cost of dividing attention that was weaker than the cost in Experiment 1. Together, our results suggest that divided attention does impair detection of simple visual features, but that this cost is primarily due to a limit in post-perceptual processes.
doi_str_mv 10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9360720</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2700314064</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-373d235b5cafdefa71a6edd5380aa5420e08dc4facee1c2ec1d932adcb78d7f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoNYbG39Ay4k4Kab0XzNZGYjSLEqFNy00F3ITU5uUzKTMclc6ML_bm6nXj8WBsJJOM95c05ehF5T8o7Ltn-fKRdUNISxulshG_kMndBB8IYP_Pb54czoMXqZ8z0hHe8keYGOeTvUym44QT-u7wCbmAuODlu_8xYs1qXAVHycsIsJWyhgHm8VyX6cA-Cdz4sO2IEuS4KM5-RHnXx4wAlcqHjGwY--Bj_huco3MyQDc9lXzSkayNlP2zN05HTI8OopnqKby0_XF1-aq2-fv158vGqMYG1puOSW8XbTGu0sOC2p7sDalvdE61YwAqS3RjhtAKhhYKgdONPWbGRvpev4Kfqw6s7LZgRr6nRJB7V2_aCi9urvzOTv1Dbu1MA7IhmpAudPAil-XyAXNfpsIAQ9QVyyYpIQTgXpREXf_oPexyVNdbxKyZ73-1UptlImxZzrpx2aoUTt3VWru6q6qx7dVbIWvflzjEPJLzsrwFcg19S0hfT77f_I_gR4LbVh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2778388888</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Harrison, Amelia H. ; Ling, Sam ; Foster, Joshua J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Amelia H. ; Ling, Sam ; Foster, Joshua J.</creatorcontrib><description>Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. Perception is generally poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, while divided attention typically impairs performance, recent work suggests that divided attention does not seem to impair detection of simple visual features. Here, we re-examined this possibility. In two experiments, observers detected a simple target (a vertical Gabor), and we manipulated whether attention was focused at one location (focal-cue condition) or distributed across two locations (distributed-cue condition). In Experiment 1, targets could appear independently at each location, such that observers needed to judge target presence for each location separately in the distributed-cue condition. Under these conditions, we found a robust cost of dividing attention. Next, we further probed what stage of processing gave rise to this cost. In Experiment 1, the cost of dividing attention could reflect a limit in the ability to make concurrent judgments about target presence. In Experiment 2, we simplified the task to test whether this was the case: just one target could appear on each trial, such that observers made a single judgment (“was a target present?”) in both the focal-cue and distributed-cue conditions. Here, we found a marginal cost of dividing attention that was weaker than the cost in Experiment 1. Together, our results suggest that divided attention does impair detection of simple visual features, but that this cost is primarily due to a limit in post-perceptual processes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1943-3921</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1943-393X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-393X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35941469</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Attention ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognitive Psychology ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; Cues ; Decision making ; Evidence ; Experiments ; Humans ; Psychology ; Short Term Memory ; Stimuli ; Visual Perception</subject><ispartof>Attention, perception &amp; psychophysics, 2023-02, Vol.85 (2), p.377-386</ispartof><rights>The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022. Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Feb 2023</rights><rights>The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-373d235b5cafdefa71a6edd5380aa5420e08dc4facee1c2ec1d932adcb78d7f63</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7034-9636 ; 0000-0002-3007-2852</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35941469$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Amelia H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ling, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Joshua J.</creatorcontrib><title>The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing</title><title>Attention, perception &amp; psychophysics</title><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><description>Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. Perception is generally poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, while divided attention typically impairs performance, recent work suggests that divided attention does not seem to impair detection of simple visual features. Here, we re-examined this possibility. In two experiments, observers detected a simple target (a vertical Gabor), and we manipulated whether attention was focused at one location (focal-cue condition) or distributed across two locations (distributed-cue condition). In Experiment 1, targets could appear independently at each location, such that observers needed to judge target presence for each location separately in the distributed-cue condition. Under these conditions, we found a robust cost of dividing attention. Next, we further probed what stage of processing gave rise to this cost. In Experiment 1, the cost of dividing attention could reflect a limit in the ability to make concurrent judgments about target presence. In Experiment 2, we simplified the task to test whether this was the case: just one target could appear on each trial, such that observers made a single judgment (“was a target present?”) in both the focal-cue and distributed-cue conditions. Here, we found a marginal cost of dividing attention that was weaker than the cost in Experiment 1. Together, our results suggest that divided attention does impair detection of simple visual features, but that this cost is primarily due to a limit in post-perceptual processes.</description><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Short Term Memory</subject><subject>Stimuli</subject><subject>Visual Perception</subject><issn>1943-3921</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoNYbG39Ay4k4Kab0XzNZGYjSLEqFNy00F3ITU5uUzKTMclc6ML_bm6nXj8WBsJJOM95c05ehF5T8o7Ltn-fKRdUNISxulshG_kMndBB8IYP_Pb54czoMXqZ8z0hHe8keYGOeTvUym44QT-u7wCbmAuODlu_8xYs1qXAVHycsIsJWyhgHm8VyX6cA-Cdz4sO2IEuS4KM5-RHnXx4wAlcqHjGwY--Bj_huco3MyQDc9lXzSkayNlP2zN05HTI8OopnqKby0_XF1-aq2-fv158vGqMYG1puOSW8XbTGu0sOC2p7sDalvdE61YwAqS3RjhtAKhhYKgdONPWbGRvpev4Kfqw6s7LZgRr6nRJB7V2_aCi9urvzOTv1Dbu1MA7IhmpAudPAil-XyAXNfpsIAQ9QVyyYpIQTgXpREXf_oPexyVNdbxKyZ73-1UptlImxZzrpx2aoUTt3VWru6q6qx7dVbIWvflzjEPJLzsrwFcg19S0hfT77f_I_gR4LbVh</recordid><startdate>20230201</startdate><enddate>20230201</enddate><creator>Harrison, Amelia H.</creator><creator>Ling, Sam</creator><creator>Foster, Joshua J.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7034-9636</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3007-2852</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230201</creationdate><title>The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing</title><author>Harrison, Amelia H. ; Ling, Sam ; Foster, Joshua J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-373d235b5cafdefa71a6edd5380aa5420e08dc4facee1c2ec1d932adcb78d7f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Short Term Memory</topic><topic>Stimuli</topic><topic>Visual Perception</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Amelia H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ling, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Joshua J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Attention, perception &amp; psychophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, Amelia H.</au><au>Ling, Sam</au><au>Foster, Joshua J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing</atitle><jtitle>Attention, perception &amp; psychophysics</jtitle><stitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</stitle><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><date>2023-02-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>377</spage><epage>386</epage><pages>377-386</pages><issn>1943-3921</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><eissn>1943-393X</eissn><abstract>Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. Perception is generally poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, while divided attention typically impairs performance, recent work suggests that divided attention does not seem to impair detection of simple visual features. Here, we re-examined this possibility. In two experiments, observers detected a simple target (a vertical Gabor), and we manipulated whether attention was focused at one location (focal-cue condition) or distributed across two locations (distributed-cue condition). In Experiment 1, targets could appear independently at each location, such that observers needed to judge target presence for each location separately in the distributed-cue condition. Under these conditions, we found a robust cost of dividing attention. Next, we further probed what stage of processing gave rise to this cost. In Experiment 1, the cost of dividing attention could reflect a limit in the ability to make concurrent judgments about target presence. In Experiment 2, we simplified the task to test whether this was the case: just one target could appear on each trial, such that observers made a single judgment (“was a target present?”) in both the focal-cue and distributed-cue conditions. Here, we found a marginal cost of dividing attention that was weaker than the cost in Experiment 1. Together, our results suggest that divided attention does impair detection of simple visual features, but that this cost is primarily due to a limit in post-perceptual processes.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>35941469</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7034-9636</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3007-2852</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1943-3921
ispartof Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023-02, Vol.85 (2), p.377-386
issn 1943-3921
1943-393X
1943-393X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9360720
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Attention
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Cues
Decision making
Evidence
Experiments
Humans
Psychology
Short Term Memory
Stimuli
Visual Perception
title The cost of divided attention for detection of simple visual features primarily reflects limits in post-perceptual processing
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T04%3A33%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20cost%20of%20divided%20attention%20for%20detection%20of%20simple%20visual%20features%20primarily%20reflects%20limits%20in%20post-perceptual%20processing&rft.jtitle=Attention,%20perception%20&%20psychophysics&rft.au=Harrison,%20Amelia%20H.&rft.date=2023-02-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=377&rft.epage=386&rft.pages=377-386&rft.issn=1943-3921&rft.eissn=1943-393X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13414-022-02547-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2700314064%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2778388888&rft_id=info:pmid/35941469&rfr_iscdi=true