1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. ATTENTION IS SELECTIVITY OF PROCESSING
1.2. ACTIVE VS PASSIVE
1.2.1. ACTIVE WHEN CONTROLLED TOP-DOWN BY EXPECTATIONS
1.2.2. PASSIVE WHEN BOTTOM-UP BY STIMULI
1.3. FOCUSED VS DIVIDED
1.4. EXTERNAL VS INTERNAL
1.4.1. EXTERNAL: SELECTION OF SENSORY INFORMATION
1.4.2. INTERNAL: SELECTION MODULATION OF INTERNALL GENERATED INFO SUCH AS RESPONSES, TASK RULES, MEMORY
1.5. MOST RESEARCH HAS TWO LIMITATIONS
1.5.1. EXTERNAL
1.5.2. EXPERIMENTER'S INSTRUCTIONS
2. FOCUSED AUDITORY ATTENTION
2.1. CHERRY
2.1.1. COCKTAIL PARTY PROBLEM
2.1.1.1. DICHOTIC LISTENING TASK
2.1.1.1.1. SHADOWING
2.1.1.2. SOUND SEGREGATION: WHICH SOUNDS BELONG TOGETHER
2.1.1.2.1. HARDER THAN VISUALSEGMENTATION
2.1.1.2.2. CAN USE PHYSICAL FEATURES
2.1.1.3. WHERE IS THE BOTTLENECK?
2.1.1.3.1. IT LIMITS THE ABILITY TO PROCESS TWO SIMULTANEOUS INPUTS AND SOLVES THE COCKTAIL PARTY PROBLEM
2.1.1.3.2. UNATTENDED INPUT
2.1.1.3.3. ALL CLASSIC THEORIES DE-EMPHASIZE FLEXIBILITY AND TOP-DOWN PROCESSES
2.1.1.4. TOP-DOWN PROCESSES
2.1.1.4.1. SCHEMA LEARNING
2.1.1.4.2. TEMPORAL COHERENCE
2.1.1.4.3. VISUAL INFO CAN ASSIST
3. FOCUSED VISUAL ATTENTION
3.1. SPOTLIGHT ZOOM LENS OR MULTIPLE SPOTLIGHTS
3.1.1. SPOTLIGHT
3.1.1.1. POSNER
3.1.1.1.1. SPATIAL RESOLUTION POOR IN PERIPHERIAL REGION BUT TEMPORAL RESOLUTION GOOD
3.1.2. ZOOM LENS
3.1.2.1. BRAIN ACTIVATION GREATEST WHEN ATTENDED REGION LARGE
3.1.2.2. PERFORMANCE BEST WHEN ATTENDED REGION SMALL
3.1.3. MULTIPLE SPOTLIGHTS
3.1.3.1. SPLIT ATTENTION
3.1.3.1.1. TWO CUED LOCATION AND AREA INBETWEEN
3.1.3.1.2. PERFORMACE BETTER WHEN TWO ADJACENT STMULI PRESENTED TO DIFFERENT HEMIFIELDS
3.1.4. METAPHORES FAIL TO SPECIFY THE UNDERLYING MECHANISMS
3.2. WHAT IS SELECTED?
3.2.1. SPACE-BASED ATTENTION
3.2.2. OBJECT-BASED ATTENTION
3.2.3. FEATURE-BASED ATTENTION
3.2.4. OBJECT BASED AND SPACE BASED ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
3.2.5. INHIBITION OF RETURN
3.3. WHAT HAPPENS TO UNATTENDED STIMULI
3.3.1. UNATTENDED RECEIVES LESS PROCESSING
3.3.2. SELECTIVE ATTENTION INFLUENCES ALL BUT VERY EARLY STAGES OF PROCESSING
3.3.3. IT IS HARD TO IGNORE TASK-IRRELEVANT STIMULI
3.4. LOAD THEORY (LAVIE)
3.4.1. PERCEPTUAL LOAD
3.4.1.1. PERCEPTUAL DEMAND OF A COGNITIVE TASK
3.4.2. COGNITIVE LOAD
3.4.2.1. BURDEN PLACED ON THE COGNITIVE SYSTEM BY A CURRENT TASK
3.4.3. TASKS INVOLVING HIGH PERCEPTUAL LOAD REQUIRE TOO MUCH CAPACITY SO LESS DISTRACTION
3.4.3.1. WITH LOW-LOAD TASKS THERE ARE SPARE ATTENTIONAL RESOURCES
3.4.3.1.1. TASK IRRELEVANT STIMULI IS MORE PROCESSED
3.4.4. TASKS INVOLVING HIGH COGNITIVE LOAD REDUCE ABILITY TO USE COGNITIVE CONTROL TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN TARGET AND DISTRACTOR STIMULI
3.4.5. HIGH PERCEPTUAL LOAD LOW DISTRACTIBILITY, HIGH COGNITIVE LOAD HIGH DISTRACTIBILITY
3.4.6. WHEN TASK AND DISTRACTING DIFFERENT MODALITY HIGH COGNITIVE LOAD REDUCES DISTRACTION
3.4.6.1. WHEN THEY ARE SIMILAR HIGH COGNITIVE LOAD INCREASES DISTRACTION
3.5. MAJOR ATTENTION NETWORKS
3.5.1. ONE GOAL DIRECTED OR ENDOGENOUS ONE STIMULUS-DRIVEN OR EXOGENOUS
3.5.1.1. POSNER
3.5.1.1.1. STUDIED COVERT ATTENTION
3.5.1.2. CORBETTA AND SHULMAN
3.5.1.2.1. A GOAL-DIRECTED OR TOP-DOWN SYSTEM
3.5.1.2.2. STIMULUS-DRIVEN OR BOTTOM-UP
3.6. DISORDERS OF VISUAL ATTENTION
3.6.1. NEGLECT
3.6.1.1. INVOLVES A LACK OF AWARENESS OF STIMULI PRESENTED TO CONTRALESIONAL SIDE BECAUSE INFO FROM LEFT SIDE OF VISUAL FIELD GO TO RIGHT HEMISPHERE
3.6.1.1.1. MOST HAVE DAMAGE IN RIGHT HEMISPHERE
3.6.1.2. HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS HAVE PSEUDO-NEGLECT
3.6.1.3. OBJECT-BASED OR ALLOCENTRIC NEGLECT
3.6.1.3.1. A LACK OF AWARENESS OF THE LEFT SIDE OF OBJECTS
3.6.1.4. BOTTOM-UP VENTRAL ATTENTION STREAM IS DAMAGED
3.6.1.5. PATIENTS HAVE LIMITED ATTENTIONAL SOURCE
3.6.2. EXTINCTION
3.6.2.1. FAILURE TO DETECT STIMULI PRESENTED TO CONRALESIONAL SIDE WHEN ANOTHER STIMULI IS PRESENTED TO LESION SIDE
3.6.2.1.1. IS A CONSEQUENCE OF BIASED COMPETITION FOR ATTENTION BETWEEN IPSILESIONAL AND CONTRALESIONAL STIMULI
3.6.2.1.2. PATIENTS HAVE REDUCED ATTENTIONAL CAPACITY SO ONLY ONE CAN BE DETECTED
3.6.3. CONSCIOUS AWARENESS AND PROCESSING
3.6.3.1. NEGLECT PATIENS SHOW NO CONSCIOUS AWARENESS OF THE STIMULI PRESENTED TO CONTRALESION
3.6.3.1.1. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THOSE STIMULI ARE NOT PROCESSED
3.6.4. THEREOTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4. VISUAL SEARCH
4.1. WHERE A SPECPFPC TARGET IS DETECTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSSIBLE
4.2. FEATURE-INTEGRATION THEORY
4.2.1. TREISMAN
4.2.1.1. WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OBJECT FEATURES AND OBJECT ITSELF
4.2.1.1.1. BASIC VISUAL FEATURES ARE PROCESSED RAPIDLY AND PRE-ATTENTIVELY IN PARALLEL
4.2.1.1.2. A SLOWER SERIAL PROCESS WITH FOCUSED ATTENTION PROVIDES THE GLUE TO FORM OBJECTS FROM FEATURES
4.2.1.1.3. TARGETS DEFINED BY A SINGLE FEATURE SHOULD BE DETECTED RAPIDLY AND IN PARALLEL OTHERWISE REQUIRES FOCUSED ATTENTION AND IS SLOWER
4.2.1.1.4. LIMITATIONS
4.3. DUAL-PATH MODEL
4.3.1. SEARCH INVOLVES TOP-DOWN PROCESSES BASED ON KNOWLEDGE
4.3.1.1. WOLFE
4.3.1.1.1. A SELECTIVE PATHWAY OF LIMITED CAPACITY WITH OBJECTS BEING SELECTED INDIVIDUALLY FOR RECOGNITION
4.3.1.1.2. A NON-SELECTIVE PATHWAY IN WHICH THE GIST IS PROCESSED
4.3.2. SCENE KNOWLEDGE FACILITATES VISUAL SEARCH BY REDUCING FUNCTIONAL SET SIZE
4.4. ATTENTION VS PERCEPTION: TEXTURE TILING MODEL
4.4.1. FULL UNDERSTANDING OF VISUAL SEARCH REQUIRES LESS EMPHASIS ON ATTENTION AND MORE ON PERCEPTION
4.4.1.1. PERIPHERAL VISION IS OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE
4.4.1.2. VISUAL SEARCH INVOLVES MORE PARALLEL THAN SERIAL
4.4.1.3. VISUAL CROWDING MORE IN PERIPHERAL VISION
4.4.1.4. SEARCH TIMES RELATED TO EYE FIXATIONS
4.4.1.5. VISUAL SEARCH IS FASTER IN EXPERTISE
5. CROSS-MODAL EFFECTS
5.1. WE OFTEN COORDINATE INFO FROM DIFFERENT MODALITIES
5.2. VENTRILOQUISM EFFECT
5.2.1. EHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL AND AUDIOTORY STIMULI
5.2.1.1. THEY SHOULD OCCUR CLOSE IN TIME
5.2.1.2. SOUND SHOULD MATCH EXPECTATIONS FROM VISUAL STIMULI
5.2.1.3. THEY SHOULD BE CLOSE TOGETHER SPATIALLY
5.2.2. VISUAL DOMINANCE
5.2.2.1. BECAUSE VISION PROVIDE MORE PRECISE INFO ABOUT SPATIAL LOCATION
5.2.2.2. BUT WE ATTACH MORE WEIGHT TO MORE INFORMATIVE MODALITY
5.3. TEMPORAL VENTRILOQUISM
5.3.1. MODALITY APPROPRIATENESS AND PRECISION HYPOTHESIS
5.3.1.1. MODALITY HAVING THE GREATEST ACUITY DOMINATES
5.3.1.1.1. AUDITORY IS MORE PRECISE IN GIVING TEMPORAL RELATIONS
6. DIVIDED ATTENTION:DUAL TASK PERFORMANCE
6.1. ABILITY TO COORDINATE THE COMLPETION OF SEVERAL TASKS TO ACHIEVE AN OVERALL GOAL
6.1.1. TWO TASKS AT THE SAME TIME OR SWITCHING
6.2. WHAT DETERMINES HOW WELL WE CAN PERFORM TWO TASKS AT THE SAME TIME
6.2.1. IF SAME TASK MODALITY THEY INTERFERE MORE
6.2.2. RESPONSE MODALITY SAME
6.2.3. PRACTICE
6.3. SERIAL VS PARALLEL PROCESSING
6.3.1. SERIAL
6.3.1.1. SWITCHING ATTENTION
6.3.1.1.1. IF USED PERFORM BETTER BUT FIND THE TASK MORE EFFORTFUL BECAUSE THEY HAD TO INHIBIT PROCESSING OF ONE TASK EAACH TIME
6.3.2. PARALLEL
6.3.2.1. AT THE SAME TIME
6.3.2.1.1. REDUCED THE COSTS
6.4. MULTIPLE RESOURCE THEORY
6.4.1. WICKENS
6.4.1.1. PROCESSING SYSTEM CONSISTS OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT PROCESSING RESOURCES
6.4.1.1.1. PROCESSING STAGES
6.4.1.1.2. PROCESSING CODES
6.4.1.1.3. MODALITIES
6.4.1.1.4. VISUAL CHANNELS
6.4.1.2. TO THE EXTENT THAT TWO TASKS USE DIFFERENT LEVELS ALONG EACH OF FIRST THREE DIMENSIONS THE DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCE IS BETTER
6.5. THREADED COGNITION
6.5.1. STREAMS OF THOUGHT ARE PRESENTED AS THREADS OF PROCESSING
6.5.1.1. WHEN THREADS DON'T REQUIRE THE SAME CCOGNITIVE RESORCES NO INTERFERENCE
6.5.1.1.1. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL RESOURCES HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY
6.6. COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
6.6.1. ADDITIVE ACTIVATION
6.6.1.1. BRAIN ACTIVATION IN DUAL TASK PERFORMENCE IS THE SUM OF SINGLE TASKS BCS ACCESS TO RESOURCES IS INTEGRATED EFFICIENTLY
6.6.2. UNDERADDITTIVE
6.6.2.1. REDUCED ACTIVATION IN SOME BRAIN AREAS BECAUSE OF RESOURCE COMPETITION BETWEEN TASKS
6.6.3. OVERADDITIVE
6.6.3.1. BRAIN ACTIVATION IN SOME AREAS IS PRESENT IN DUAL-TASK BUT NOT IN SINGLE TASKS
6.6.3.1.1. WHEN DUAL-TASK REQUIRES ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE PROCESSES
6.7. PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD: COGNITIVE BOTTLENECK?
6.7.1. WHEN THE SECOND STIMILUS IS PRESENTED SHORTLY AFTER FIRST THERE IS A SLOWING OF RESPONSE TO SECOND STIMULUS
6.7.1.1. PERCEPTUAL STAGE
6.7.1.2. CENTRAL RESPONCE SELECTION
6.7.1.2.1. BOTTLENECK IS HERE
6.7.1.3. RESPONSE EXECUTION
6.7.2. THIS EFFECT IS LARGER WHEN SECOND ONE FOLOOWS VERY SOON
6.7.3. USUALLY SERIAL
6.7.4. CROSSTALK AND BAKWARD CROSSTALK
7. AUTOMATIC PROCESSING
7.1. SOME PROCESSES BCOME AUTOMATIC WITH PRACTICE
7.2. TRADITIONAL APPROACH
7.2.1. SHIFFRIN AND SCHNEIDER
7.2.1.1. CONTROLLED PROCESSES
7.2.1.1.1. OF LIMITED CAPACITY
7.2.1.1.2. REQUIRE ATTENTION
7.2.1.1.3. CAN BE USED FLEXIBLY
7.2.1.2. AUTOMATIC PROCESSES
7.2.1.2.1. NO CAPACITY LIMITATION
7.2.1.2.2. DO NOT REQUIRE ATTENTION
7.2.1.2.3. VERY HARD TO MODIFY ONCE LEARNED
7.2.1.2.4. LESS CONSCIOUS AWARENESS
7.2.1.3. CONSISTENT MAPPING
7.2.1.3.1. AUTOMATIC PROCESSES IN PARALLEL
7.2.1.4. VARIED MAPPING
7.2.1.4.1. NUMBERS OF ITEMS AND VISUAL DISPLAY AFFECTED DECISION SPEED
7.2.1.4.2. SERIAL COMPARAISONS
7.3. DEFINITIONS OF AUTOMATICITY
7.3.1. MOORS IDENTIFIED KEY FEATURES OF AUTOMATICITY
7.3.1.1. UNCONSCIOUS
7.3.1.2. EFFICIENT
7.3.1.2.1. USING LITTLE ATTENTIONAL CAPACITY
7.3.1.3. FAST
7.3.1.4. GOAL-UNRELATED
7.3.1.5. THESE FEATURES ARE FOUND TOGETHER
7.3.2. AUTOMATICITY IS MEMORY RETRIEVAL
7.3.3. BUT USE OF RETRIEVAL AFTER PRACTICE IS NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC
7.4. DECOMPOSITIONAL APPROACH
7.4.1. MOORS
7.4.1.1. ACCORDING TO THIS THE FEATURES ARE SEPERABLE
7.4.1.1.1. HEY HAVE NO PERFECT COHERENCE
7.4.1.2. NO FIRM DIVISION BETWEEN AUTOMACITY AND NON-AUTOMAYICITY
7.4.1.2.1. MOST PROCESSES INVOLVE A BLEND OF TWO