Secondary task modality, expectancy, and the measurement of attentional capacity

Previous studies have obtained conflicting evidence regarding the effect of probe modality when a secondary probe task is used to measure attentional demands of a primary letter-matching task. The present experiments found no difference in the shape of the probe reaction time functions for auditory and visual probes as long as probe modality was known. When probes "unexpectedly" occurred in the modality that was different from the majority of the probes, differences were obtained. Only the unexpected auditory function changed, shape relative to the others, with reaction time to probes that occurred early in the matching task sequence being increased. The results are interpreted as supporting a role of attentional capacity in the activation of structures that accept relevant sensory input.

Secondary task modality, expectancy, and the measurement of attentional capacity

Previous studies have obtained conflicting evidence regarding the effect of probe modality when a secondary probe task is used to measure attentional demands of a primary letter-matching task. The present experiments found no difference in the shape of the probe reaction time functions for auditory and visual probes as long as probe modality was known. When probes "unexpectedly" occurred in the modality that was different from the majority of the probes, differences were obtained. Only the unexpected auditory function changed, shape relative to the others, with reaction time to probes that occurred early in the matching task sequence being increased. The results are interpreted as supporting a role of attentional capacity in the activation of structures that accept relevant sensory input.

Time, capacity, and selection between perceptual attributes

Three experiments were run to determine whether time and central-processing capacity are requried to select between perceptual attributes. A same-different matching task was employed for all experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, three sets of stimulus pairs were used, each of which varied along only one relevant perceptual dimension (color, size, or form). In Experiment 1, reaction time on the matching task was shown to be faster when the stimuli were presented in blocks in which all stimulus pairs came from the same set (blocked presentation) than when stimulus pairs from each of the three sets were randomly intermixed (random presentation). In Experiment 2, reaction time on a secondary probe task was faster during the encoding stage of a sequential mathcing task with blocked presentation than with random presentation. Experiment 3 indicated that this outcome could not be attributed to a difference in the number of possible stimulus alternatives. Thus, the results support the hypothesis that time and central-processing capacity are required to select between perceptual attributes.

Time, capacity, and selection between perceptual attributes

Three experiments were run to determine whether time and central-processing capacity are requried to select between perceptual attributes. A same-different matching task was employed for all experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, three sets of stimulus pairs were used, each of which varied along only one relevant perceptual dimension (color, size, or form). In Experiment 1, reaction time on the matching task was shown to be faster when the stimuli were presented in blocks in which all stimulus pairs came from the same set (blocked presentation) than when stimulus pairs from each of the three sets were randomly intermixed (random presentation). In Experiment 2, reaction time on a secondary probe task was faster during the encoding stage of a sequential mathcing task with blocked presentation than with random presentation. Experiment 3 indicated that this outcome could not be attributed to a difference in the number of possible stimulus alternatives. Thus, the results support the hypothesis that time and central-processing capacity are required to select between perceptual attributes.