Automatic and controlled attention processes in auditory target detection.

S E Poltrock; M Lansman; E Hunt

doi:10.1037//0096-1523.8.1.37

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6460083

Automatic and controlled attention processes in auditory target detection.

S E Poltrock·M Lansman·E Hunt

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Shiffrin and Schneider proposed a general theory of attention that postulates the existence of automatic and controlled search processes. They concluded that automatic processes develop when the mapping between stimuli and responses is consistent and controlled processing occurs when the mapping is varied. The effects of consistent and varied mapping were examined in an auditory target detection task. Subjects listened for one or three target letters embedded in a stream of dichotic letter pairs. Subjects responded faster and made fewer errors under the consistent mapping (CM) condition than under the varied mapping (VM) condition, and the effect of memory set size decreased over practice in the CM condition but not the VM condition. The results are discussed in terms of automatic and controlled processes involved in recognition of target stimuli. A review of research on auditory target detection suggests that the development of automatic processes may account for some apparent discrepancies in the literature.

Explore related subjects

Attention Humans Mental Recall Practice, Psychological Reaction Time Speech Perception Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

S E Poltrock, M Lansman, E Hunt. 1982. Automatic and controlled attention processes in auditory target detection.. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0096-1523.8.1.37

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

On the role of selective attention in visual perception.

What is the role of selective attention in visual perception? Before answering this question, it is necessary to differentiate between attentional mechanisms that influence the identification of a stimulus from those that operate after perception is complete. Cognitive neuroscience techniques are particularly well suited to making this distinction because they allow different attentional mechanisms to be isolated in terms of timing and/or neuroanatomy. The present article describes the use of these techniques in differentiating between perceptual and postperceptual attentional mechanisms and then proposes a specific role of attention in visual perception. Specifically, attention is proposed to resolve ambiguities in neural coding that arise when multiple objects are processed simultaneously. Evidence for this hypothesis is provided by two experiments showing that attention-as measured electrophysiologically-is allocated to visual search targets only under conditions that would be expected to lead to ambiguous neural coding.

Attention↗

PubMed1998

Letter recognition reveals pathways of second-order and third-order motion.

How are second-order (texture-defined) and third-order (pattern-tracking) motions processed in our brains? As shown here in the context of an ambiguous motion task involving a nominal second-order stimuli first devised by Werkhoven et al., [Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G. & Chubb, C. (1993) Vision Res. 33, 463-485.], the observers fell into two distinct groups based on the direction of perceived motion. The differences were interpreted in terms of the algorithms used to extract motion: one group by using a second-order motion process and the other by using a third-order motion process. This was investigated further using a dual-task paradigm in which the interference between two tasks indicated the nature of processing involved. Observers who used third-order motion processing experienced interference with letter recognition and a more severe interference in dual third-order motion tasks. Observers who used second-order motion processing experienced interference with another second-order motion detection but not with letter recognition. Insofar as task interference implies the need for attention, the complex interference effects and the apparently paradoxical interference effects of second-order motion perception imply that there are multiple forms of attention. Whether two tasks interfere depends on whether they require the same form of attention. Insofar as spatio-temporal processing is assumed to be carried out in the dorsal stream and pattern recognition in the ventral stream, the interference patterns suggest that second-order motion may be computed entirely in the dorsal stream, and third-order motion may involve two computational processes, one of which shares computational resources with the letter recognition task in the ventral stream.

Attention↗

PubMed1998

Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: comment on McKinley and Nosofsky (1996).

S. C. McKinley and R. M. Nosofsky (1996) compared a linear decision-bound model with the generalized context model (GCM) in their ability to account for categorization data from experiments that used integral- or separable-dimension stimuli and required selective attention or attention to both dimensions. McKinley and Nosofsky (1996) found support for the GCM and concluded that decision-bound theory needs to incorporate assumptions about selective attention. In this commentary it is argued that (a) unlike the GCM, decision-bound theory provides a framework for independently investigating perceptual and decisional forms of selective attention; (b) the effect of stimulus integrality on the form of the optimal decision bound is misinterpreted; (c) averaged data is biased against decision-bound theory and toward the GCM; (d) many a priori predictions of the GCM are violated empirically; and (e) exemplar theory has lost much of its initial theoretical structure.

Attention↗