attention additional reading

Question 1

zoom lens strengths

Answer 1

• Muller et al., 2003: MRI studies show that the spatial extent of visual attention can be modulated depending on task demands. For example, Müller et al. (2003) showed changes in retinotopic activation in early visual cortex consistent with the zoom lens hypothesis
• Castiello & Umlita, 1990: Studies using divided attention paradigms (e.g., Castiello & Umiltà, 1990) have shown that when attention is spread over a large area, performance declines, further supporting the idea of an attentional trade-off.

Question 2

zoom lens limitations

Answer 2

• Desimone & Duncan, 1995: primarily explains spatial attention, without integrating how goals, expectations, or working memory guide attention. More recent models (e.g., the biased competition model) offer richer accounts by including both bottom-up and top-down influences.
• Egly et al., 1994: zoom lens model assumes space-based attention, but research has shown that attention often selects whole objects regardless of their spatial extent (Egly et al., 1994), challenging the idea that spatial scope alone determines attentional resolution

Question 3

spotlight theory strengths

Answer 3

• Posner et al., 1980: Posner developed the cueing paradigm, a highly influential method to study spatial attention. Participants responded faster to targets at validly cued locations, showing that attention enhances perception at cued spots even without eye movements
• Mangun & Hillyard, 1991: Behavioral and neural evidence supports the idea that attending to a spatial location increases processing efficiency. ERP studies show enhanced early visual responses (e.g., P1 component) at attended locations, consistent with the spotlight metaphor.

Question 4

spotlight theory limitations

Answer 4

• Egly et al., 1994: The model is strictly spatial, but attention often selects entire objects, not just locations. Egly et al. (1994) showed faster detection when the target appeared on the same object as the cue, even at equidistant spatial positions
• Treue & Martinez-Trujillo, 1999: the theory overlooks that attention can be directed to features (e.g., color, motion direction) across space. Treue & Martinez-Trujillo (1999) showed that neurons in visual cortex are enhanced when attending to specific features, regardless of spatial location.

Question 5

multiple spotlight theory strengths

Answer 5

• McMains & Somers, 2004: fMRI research supports the presence of multiple attentional peaks. McMains & Somers (2004) demonstrated distinct patterns of activation in visual cortex for two spatially separate targets, indicating simultaneous attentional enhancement at both locations.
• Kramer & Hahn, 1995: This model accommodates parallel selection of stimuli, consistent with findings in visual search tasks, where attention appears to operate on multiple items simultaneously, not serially.

Question 6

multiple spotlight theory limitations

Answer 6

-Jans et al., 2010: Some critics argue that the appearance of split attention may result from rapid, covert switching between locations, rather than truly simultaneous attention. Thus, multiple spotlights might reflect fast temporal dynamics rather than spatially divided foci
- Cavanagh & Alvarex, 2005: While attention can be split, the number of effective foci may be limited (often to two), and performance declines with more targets, suggesting a capacity constraint inconsistent with full parallelism.

Question 7

Broadbent filter bottleneck model strengths

Answer 7

• Broadbent, 1954: Broadbent based his theory on dichotic listening studies, where participants could repeat the message in the attended ear but not from the unattended one, supporting the idea of an early filter
• Cherry, 1953: Broadbent’s model introduced a systematic, scientific framework for studying attention, influenced by computer models of the mind, and laid the groundwork for cognitive psychology

Question 8

broadbent filter bottleneck model limitations

Answer 8

• Moray, 1959: Later research (e.g., the cocktail party effect) showed that personally relevant information (e.g., hearing your name) from the unattended channel can still capture attention, suggesting some semantic analysis occurs pre-filter
• Desimone & Duncan, 1995: Broadbent’s model emphasizes bottom-up (stimulus-driven) selection, but modern theories highlight the role of top-down (goal-directed) attention, which dynamically modulates filtering based on task demands.

Question 9

treisman attentuation strengths

Answer 9

• Treisman, 1960: In her own experiments, Treisman (1960) found that participants often followed the semantic meaning of a sentence across ears in dichotic listening tasks (e.g., shifting attention mid-sentence), indicating semantic processing of the attenuated channel.
• Naatanen, 1990: ERP (event-related potential) studies support the idea that some unattended stimuli elicit neural responses, suggesting partial processing, consistent with attenuation rather than total filtering.

Question 10

treisman attenuation limitations

Answer 10

• Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963: Some findings suggest even non-salient stimuli can be processed semantically, supporting late selection theories (e.g., Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963), which propose that all inputs are processed to meaning before selection occurs.
• Much of Treisman’s evidence comes from verbal tasks, such as dichotic listening. It’s unclear how well the theory generalizes to visual or multimodal attention scenarios.