An exploration of the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation studies

Attention is a cognitive mechanism that helps us select and process vital information while ignoring irrelevant information, enabling us to consolidate our memories. Attentional blink typically refers to the finding of a severe impairment for detection or identification of the second target (T2) of the two masked visual targets that occurs when the targets are presented within less than 500 milliseconds of each other. In this context, T1 refers to the first target, which captures attention and temporarily limits the ability to detect or identify T2 if they are presented too closely in time. Raymond et al. (1992) suggested that the attentional blink phenomenon is observed in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) conditions in which stimuli such as letters, digits or pictures are presented in a rapid sequence mostly at a single location. Typically, the target from the RSVP stimulus stream is differentiated (e.g. presented in a different colour), and the participant’s task is to identify the target. The RSVP procedure is a widely employed paradigm used to examine the temporal characteristics of perceptual and attentional processes.

Shapiro (1994) proposed the interference theory as an explanation for attentional blink. According to the interference theory, there is a temporal buffer if many distractors are present. Due to the limitations of visual short-term memory, multiple items compete to be retrieved from this hypothetical temporal buffer, which can affect recall accuracy. As a result, attentional blink occurs due to competition over which target, T1 or T2, receives attentional processing. Supporting evidence comes from Isaak (1999), who presented combinations of letter and false-font stimuli per trial, and claimed that attentional blink magnitude increases if the competitors arise from the same conceptual category, for example, digits. 

Alternatively, Chun and Potter (1995) introduced their two-stage model to account for attentional blink. The aim of their research was to investigate whether attentional blink occurs in a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) task. Their hypothesis stated that participants’ ability to detect T2 would be reduced if it appeared approximately 300 milliseconds after T1. They also sought to examine whether attentional blink reflects a limited-capacity processing mechanism. The model suggests that stage 1 is where stimuli are processed and features and meanings are registered, but not at a sufficient level for report. In stage 2, the stimulus is consolidated for a response. The researchers reported that attentional blink occurs at stage 2, where identification and consolidation of T1 are slowed when there is a following item, delaying the processing of T2 after the onset of T1.

Discussion

Many RSVP studies hypothesise that presenting T2 300-700 milliseconds after T1, with multiple distractor items, increases the likelihood of attentional blink and impairs the ability to detect T2. This outcome aligns with Shapiro et al.’s (1999) interference theory, as participants faced significant difficulty retrieving stimuli from the temporal buffer during the dual task. However, participants demonstrated a higher success rate in identifying the target during the single task, even with rapid stimulus presentation. Additional support for the interference theory is provided by Raffone et al. (2014), who argued that T2 must be masked by a distractor, and if T1 appears within 500 milliseconds of T2, T2 often goes undetected, leading to attentional blink. The unified model further suggests that in RSVP tasks, attention allocation to T1 reduces the attention available for T2, leaving T2 susceptible to decay or substitution. This implies that attentional blink may result from T1 monopolising attentional resources and thus limiting the capacity to process T2, which explains the poorer performance observed in the dual task.

Conclusions

Despite their insights, both theories of attentional blink have notable shortcomings. There is contradicting evidence for the interference theory from Olivers and Meeter (2008), who believe that once attentional blink is induced by a first target, it can be alleviated if T2 is preceded by a non-target that shares a target-defining feature, such as having the same colour. Whereas, Reeves and Sperling (1986) postulate that an attentional gate is opened after T1 is detected and continues to remain open until target identification is complete. This can amplify the processing of the stimuli, enabling the identification of T1 and aiding T2 in receiving attentional processes and being identified accurately. A main limitation of the two-stage model for attentional blink studies is its difficulty in explaining the full spectrum of attentional blink effects, particularly the T1-sparing’ phenomenon and the impact of task demands on T2 processing. For instance, the two-stage model often assumes that T2 processing is solely impaired due to the attentional load of T1, but research suggests that the difficulty of the T2 task itself can influence the attentional blink. For example, if T2 requires a more complex or demanding response, the attentional blink effect may be more pronounced, even if T1 processing is relatively simple. 

Future research should investigate if attentional blink exists within other modalities, such as cross-modal perception (visual T1, auditory T2). This will enable us to get a deeper insight into how the attention mechanisms operate. Future research should also explore alternative explanations for the attentional blink. Some studies suggest it may not be solely attributable to resource limitations or processing bottlenecks but could instead reflect a more dynamic process involving attentional re-engagement or the interaction between perceptual and attentional systems.

Written by Pranavi Rastogi

REFERENCES

Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 109-127. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.109

Isaak, M. I., Shapiro, K. L., & Martin, J. (1999). The attentional blink reflects retrieval competition among multiple rapid serial visual presentation items: Tests of an interference model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1774-1792. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1774

Olivers, C. N., & Meeter, M. (2008). A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review, 115(4), 836-863. doi:10.1037/a0013395

Raffone, A., Srinivasan, N., & Van Leeuwen, C. (2014). The interplay of attention and consciousness in visual search, attentional blink and working memory consolidation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1641), 20130215. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0215

Reeves, A., & Sperling, G. (1986). Attention gating in short-term visual memory. Psychological Review, 93(2), 180-206. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.180

Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849-860. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.849

Shapiro, K. L., Raymond, J. E., & Arnell, K. M. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,20(2), 357-371. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.357