For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
70
views
39
references
 Top references
cited by
59
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      225
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Perceptual load is a key determinant of distraction by task-irrelevant stimuli (e.g., Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82). Here we establish the role of perceptual load in determining an internal form of distraction by task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs or “mind-wandering”).

          Four experiments demonstrated reduced frequency of TUTs with high compared to low perceptual load in a visual-search task. Alternative accounts in terms of increased demands on responses, verbal working memory or motivation were ruled out and clear effects of load were found for unintentional TUTs. Individual differences in load effects on internal (TUTs) and external (response-competition) distractors were correlated. These results suggest that exhausting attentional capacity in task-relevant processing under high perceptual load can reduce processing of task-irrelevant information from external and internal sources alike.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load.

          Nilli Lavie (2005)
          The ability to remain focused on goal-relevant stimuli in the presence of potentially interfering distractors is crucial for any coherent cognitive function. However, simply instructing people to ignore goal-irrelevant stimuli is not sufficient for preventing their processing. Recent research reveals that distractor processing depends critically on the level and type of load involved in the processing of goal-relevant information. Whereas high perceptual load can eliminate distractor processing, high load on "frontal" cognitive control processes increases distractor processing. These findings provide a resolution to the long-standing early and late selection debate within a load theory of attention that accommodates behavioural and neuroimaging data within a framework that integrates attention research with executive function.
          Article 0 comments Cited 397 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control.

            Nilli Lavie, Aleksandra Hirst, Jan de Fockert … (2004)
            A load theory of attention in which distractor rejection depends on the level and type of load involved in current processing was tested. A series of experiments demonstrates that whereas high perceptual load reduces distractor interference, working memory load or dual-task coordination load increases distractor interference. These findings suggest 2 selective attention mechanisms: a perceptual selection mechanism serving to reduce distractor perception in situations of high perceptual load that exhaust perceptual capacity in processing relevant stimuli and a cognitive control mechanism that reduces interference from perceived distractors as long as cognitive control functions are available to maintain current priorities (low cognitive load). This theory resolves the long-standing early versus late selection debate and clarifies the role of cognitive control in selective attention. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)
            Article 0 comments Cited 381 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search.

              Steven Yantis, John Jonides (1984)
              The effect of temporal discontinuity on visual search was assessed by presenting a display in which one item had an abrupt onset, while other items were introduced by gradually removing line segments that camouflaged them. We hypothesized that an abrupt onset in a visual display would capture visual attention, giving this item a processing advantage over items lacking an abrupt leading edge. This prediction was confirmed in Experiment 1. We designed a second experiment to ensure that this finding was due to attentional factors rather than to sensory or perceptual ones. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1 and demonstrated that the procedure used to avoid abrupt onset--camouflage removal--did not require a gradual waveform. Implications of these findings for theories of attention are discussed.
              Article 0 comments Cited 209 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cognition
                Title: Cognition
                Publisher: Elsevier
                ISSN (Print): 0010-0277
                ISSN (Electronic): 1873-7838
                Publication date PMC-release: June 2009
                Publication date (Print): June 2009
                Volume: 111
                Issue: 3
                Pages: 345-355
                Affiliations
                Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Research Department of Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7679 5552; fax: +44 20 74364276. sophie.forster@ 123456gmail.com sophie_forster@ 123456hotmail.com
                Article
                Publisher ID: COGNIT1947
                DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.006
                PMC ID: 2706319
                PubMed ID: 19327760
                SO-VID: 770b2948-a9ee-4bcd-8dda-ce70152a7d57
                Copyright © © 2009 Elsevier B.V.
                License:

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Date received : 6 May 2008
                Date revision received : 26 January 2009
                Date accepted : 19 February 2009
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Neurosciences
                Keywords: perceptual load,attention,task-unrelated thoughts,distractor interference,mind-wandering,response competition
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Neurosciences
                Keywords: perceptual load, attention, task-unrelated thoughts, distractor interference, mind-wandering, response competition

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content225

                See all similar

                Cited by59

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors208

                See all reference authors