Dissertation > Excellent graduate degree dissertation topics show

The Effect Mechanism of Non-targets Upon Attentional Blink in RSVP

Author: YangMei
Tutor: XuZhan
School: Southwestern University
Course: Developmental and Educational Psychology
Keywords: Attentional Blink RSVP paradigm Target item Non-target items Visual masking
CLC: B842
Type: Master's thesis
Year: 2011
Downloads: 156
Quote: 0
Read: Download Dissertation

Abstract

Blink is a research note from the time dimension when the discovery of a phenomenon: the rapid serial visual presentation paradigm presents a series of stimuli, such as letters, numbers, words, graphics, etc., including a number of non-target items and two target item, denoted as T1, T2, were asked to identify the RSVP stimulus stream T1 and T2. Which refers to non-target items RSVP stimulus stream, in addition to two other projects outside the aimed target, including T1 before, T1-T2 and T2 after stimulation between items. If T2 after T1 about 200-500ms presents this period will lead to difficulties in identifying T2, this phenomenon is called attentional blink. Attentional Blink classical theoretical models have two-stage model, central interference theory. Two senior center-stage model that since the limited processing capacity, the first goal of the target T1 T2 appears in the second stage of processing takes up limited resources, making the T2 processing can not be processed in time to be consolidated, but the formation of the first stage of processing Characterization of instability, so it is followed by a non-target item coverage, resulting in Attentional Blink. Central interference theory that there are two phases of the input information processing, two target sequences can only be processed with the two-stage theory model differs in that it emphasizes the bottleneck exists not only in the consolidation phase also occurs in the reaction stage. Essentially these theories can be summed up as attentional blink bottleneck theory, mainly resulting from the processing of high-level central control of T1 scarce resources lead to T2 identification difficult angle to explain the attentional blink phenomenon. In recent years the temporary disappearance of the proposed control theory, noting the delay in investment theory on the basis of new experimental findings began to focus on non-target and target term relationship between the items AB phenomenon. Early distractor interference suppression theory T1 and the mutual interference between distractors start a non-target stimulus to overcome the interference suppression process, but this inhibition has continuity, and thus affect the second target target identification, so the inhibition caused by non-target items is to produce Attentional Blink causes. Control theory that the temporary loss of target instructions issued by the central controller inputs T1 processing, temporary loss of control of the endogenous system, T1 distraction project input lead after the system change in exogenous changes resulting note template, emphasis T1 -T2 non-target item as different from the target entry heterogeneous stimulation resulted in loss of control is to produce AB attention of the important reasons. Note that the delay investment theory suggests that attention on T1 for selection, attention shifted on T2 can only delay occurs, leading to the first goal of the selection and processing of other items needed attention misfire, T1-T2 between non-target item is a time-delayed to influence on the processing result T2 AB. This paper discusses the RSVP paradigm in non target item on the Attentional Blink effect. Experiment 1 Consider the non-target item after T2, T2 after the removal of both non-target item or simply have led to the displacement of the AB effect significantly reduced or even disappear, after verification of the T2 term non-target is to produce the visual masking AB necessary conditions for the object replace or eliminate interference effects. Experimental design in order to avoid non-target items spatial orientation jump too obviously caused novelty effect of spatial information, and the use of appropriate spatial separation of T2 with the subsequent non-target retained some overlap between items, there remain heterogeneous stimulus input or object substitution effects simultaneously lifted the backward masking of T2. Experiment 1 supports this conclusion is not alien to stimulate advanced levels of interference but T2 AB backward masking is to generate the necessary conditions. T2 of whether there are other non-target information input for the generation of AB could be unimportant, but the existence and T2 in the same spatial position of the visual masking is very critical. The key results of Experiment 1 is to clarify the non-target items after T2 is the essence of the role of the object involved in advanced stages of processing alternatives still involves only primary processing of visual masking, the conclusion is the latter. Experiment 2 investigated T1-T2 between the non-target items, when a weakening of non-target items on T2 forward masking, although the overall SOA to improve the conditions of each correct response rate, but did not change from baseline J-type reactions tendency of the AB effect still occurs; other hand, only after T1 maintains a non-target item's condition, even when the level of the T2 is on all SOA recognition rate, but still produce a baseline condition and effect similar to AB . When T1 is completely removed after the masking effect when AB decreased significantly. Seems to indicate that the backward masking effect on T1 is also a necessary condition for generating AB. Preliminary results obtained by experiment 2 between T1 and T2 non-target entry through the influence of T1 T2 processing thus affecting identification. In addition, Mosaic is no semantic pure visual symbols, it does not cause the input between the numbers and letters identifying the template system arising from changes in the reconstruction of attention problems. Mosaic is only induced by the primary processing of the visual system symbols, symbols and numbers will not bring competition among target letter processing resource conflicts. Results mosaic conditions compared to non-target items produced figures more significant AB effect, which noted that the temporary loss of control theory questioned. Experiment 3 increased the difficulty of processing of T1, T1-T2 found that even simply between the target item, also have AB effect. Even when (?) 1-T2 non-target items between T1 processing difficulty and large, will get greater than the baseline AB effect. And T1 upright masking baseline conditions T1 inverted compared to conditions without masking, T2 recognition rate and with no significant difference in response to changes in SOA same trend, ie increasing the difficulty of processing T1 and T1 after masking two kinds different ways of operating variables AB has produced a similar effect. Showed that between T1-T2 after the adoption of non-target items masking effects processing thereby affecting T1 T2 identification, this is between T1-T2 AB effect of an impact on non-target substance. Integrated throughout the study results show that the target entry RSVP paradigm Central Africa through action at different times after the masking process affect AB effect. This study investigated the target item RSVP paradigm new perspective on Africa as the two-stage theory model provides further support.

Related Dissertations

CLC: > Philosophy, religion > Psychology > Psychological processes and mental state
© 2012 www.DissertationTopic.Net Mobile