PubMed · 14104090
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D E BROADBENT. 1964. VIGILANCE.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a070275
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We will describe a computational model of attention which explains the guidance of spatial attention by feedback within a distributed network. We hypothesize that feedback within the ventral pathway transfers the target template from prefrontal areas into intermediate areas like V4. The oculomotor circuit consisting of FEF, LIP and superior colliculus picks up this distributed activity and provides a continuous spatial reentry signal from premotor cells. In order to test this hypothesis, we simulate two experiments that require a response given a color cue. The first experiment indicates a parallel feature-based enhancement prior to any spatial selection. If two targets are behaviorally relevant, as in the second experiment, experimental findings indicate that subjects split their attention between two locations containing the searched feature. Our simulation results suggest that the split in attention between two foci is a transient effect occurring during competition. We predict that the time after cue presentation determines the state of this competition and ultimately the distribution of attention at different locations. In addition we provide simulation results to explain how reentrant processing through the oculomotor circuit might lead to variations of the time for target detection in visual search.
When a visual target is identified, there is a period of several hundred milliseconds when the processing of subsequent targets is impaired, a phenomenon labeled the attentional blink (AB). The emerging consensus is that the identification of a visual target temporarily occupies a limited attentional resource that is essential for all visual perception. The present results challenge this view. With the same digit discrimination task that impaired subsequent letter discrimination for several hundred milliseconds, we found no disruption of subsequent face discrimination. These results suggest that all stimuli do not compete for access to a single resource for visual perception. We propose a multi-channel account of interference in the AB paradigm.
The anticipative learning model for acquiring action-effect relations states that the acquisition of action-effect relations depends on processes that are part of action planning, in particular the anticipation of possible effects. Experiment 1 shows that response planning is indeed crucial for the learning of response effects. In this experiment distractors (tones) were presented either during response preparation or in the time interval between response execution and the presentation of a response effect. Response-effect learning was impaired when the distractors were presented during response preparation. The finding is consistent with the assumption that the distractors impaired the anticipation of potential effects and therefore reduced effect learning. In Experiment 2 all responses had two effects. Participants were instructed to produce one of the effects. Under this condition, response-effect learning was only found for the instructed effect, not for the non-instructed effect. The two experiments thus support the view that response-effect learning is selective and depends on the anticipation of potential effects during response planning. The results are discussed in terms of a model that explains both the learning of response-effect relations and the use of these effects for action control within the same theoretical framework.