August 2009
Volume 9, Issue 8
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2009
Targets in RSVP sentences: Attentional blinks in whole versus partial report
Author Affiliations
  • Mary C. Potter
    Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT
  • Jennifer Olejarczyk
    Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT
  • Brad Wyble
    Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT
Journal of Vision August 2009, Vol.9, 257. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mary C. Potter, Jennifer Olejarczyk, Brad Wyble; Targets in RSVP sentences: Attentional blinks in whole versus partial report. Journal of Vision 2009;9(8):257.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Potter, Nieuwenstein, & Strohminger (2008) found that there was an attentional blink for report of the second of two red (or uppercase) words at a short SOA, in an RSVP sentence presented for 93 ms per word. If participants simply reported the whole sentence without looking for targets, they had no difficulty including the same two words along with the rest of the sentence. In new experiments, the task required report of the sentence together with report of the two targets (red words or uppercase words). Although the target words were reported in recall of the sentence, participants again showed an attentional blink—they frequently failed to identify which word had been red (or uppercase). In further experiments, the targets were strings of Arabic digits (e.g., 5555) or written digits (e.g., five). The easily discriminated Arabic digits showed little evidence of a blink in whole report, whereas with written digits there was an attentional blink in both whole report and partial report—and recall of the sentence was poor. Thus, when the targets are not visually distinguished from the words of the sentence and must be selected by meaning, sentence report and digit report are mutually interfering. Notably, in all the experiments there was lag 1 sparing (facilitation of T2 at an SOA of 93 ms) in all the conditions in which there was an attentional blink at lag 2 or 3, in accordance with Wyble's theory of AB (Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, in press). Lag 1 sparing results because the attentional episode initiated by T1 extends for about 150 ms, benefiting T1 if it appears in that interval, but leading to an attentional blink at a longer SOA as the first episode is consolidated. Overall, the results show that the attentional blink is a blink of selection, not of perception.

Potter, M. C. Olejarczyk, J. Wyble, B. (2009). Targets in RSVP sentences: Attentional blinks in whole versus partial report [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 9(8):257, 257a,, doi:10.1167/9.8.257. [CrossRef]
 Supported by MH 047432.

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.