Simplest definition of attention:

1
(No Transcript)
2
Simplest definition of attention a process
inferred when responses on one task are affected
by responding simultaneously to another
3
S(0) is the level of the standard.
4
(No Transcript)
5
But, Macmillan (w/tonal pedestal) and Bonnel et
al. (w/visual pededestal) found
ddetection gt didentification
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Thinking that, unlike the case with energy,
responses to transients might be pre-attentive,
Bonnel et al. (1992) tested in a dual task with
independent stimuli on side-by-side LEDs.
9
Thinking that, unlike the case with energy,
responses to transients might be pre-attentive,
Bonnel et al. (1992) tested in a dual task with
independent stimuli on side-by-side
LEDs. Detection was comparable to performance
found with S instructed to attend to only one
LED identification showed a tradeoff indicative
of a shared attentional resource.
10
Thinking that, unlike the case with energy,
responses to transients might be pre-attentive,
Bonnel et al. (1992) tested in a dual task with
independent stimuli on side-by-side
LEDs. Detection was comparable to performance
found with S instructed to attend to only one
LED identification showed a tradeoff indicative
of a shared attentional resource. Caveat
Perceptual grouping in identification
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Use the strictest possible criterion for
asserting that there is no cost of shared
attention compare performance in the dual-task
to that found in the separate single tasks.
15
(No Transcript)
16
SIAOC
17
(No Transcript)
18
A more direct test of the idea that detecting
transience (change per se) doesnt require shared
attention simply removes transients as
information.
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
A or V
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Perhaps the reason that use of change per se did
not provoke a cost of sharing is that it was done
in sensory trace (?rehearsal?) memory?
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Most intriguing is that despite very poor
performance, especially with long delays, there
was no cost of sharing.
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
Okay, so comparisons to the sensory trace memory
produced no cost of shared attention. What in the
world is trace memory?
42
Okay, so comparisons to the sensory trace memory
produced no cost of shared attention. What in the
world is trace memory? Recently, weve
approached this in terms of Webers
Law. Bringing the lab up to 1834.
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
What happens when comparisons are to a roved
standard? Thresholds go up. But in what way? To
answer this, we parse the data in terms of the
individual standards, analyzing performance
separately for each pedestal level.
46
No Rove
3
Labeled memory
Rove
1
Trace memory
-1
Threshold 10 log (?I/I )
-3
-5
-7
55
60
65
70
75
Pedestal
47
The change in slope implies a second, additive
noise, c.
3
1
-1
Threshold (dB)
-3
multiplicative additive noise
-5
multiplicative noise
-7
55
60
65
70
75
Pedestal (dB)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
Our next plan is to go into fMRI in search of
sensory rehearsal. Wish us luck.