↓ Skip to main content

Dissociating compatibility effects and distractor costs in the additional singleton paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dissociating compatibility effects and distractor costs in the additional singleton paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles L. Folk

Abstract

The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory. However, compatibility effects have also played a role in the debate over the extent to which the involuntary allocation of spatial attention (i.e., attentional capture) is completely stimulus-driven or whether it is contingent on top-down control settings. For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects. This combination of search costs and compatibility effects has been taken as evidence that spatial attention is indeed allocated in a bottom-up fashion to the salient but irrelevant singletons. However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention. In the present experiments, manipulations of load were incorporated into the traditional additional singleton paradigm. Under low-load conditions, both search costs and compatibility effects were obtained, replicating previous studies. Under high-load conditions, search costs were still present, but compatibility effects were eliminated. This dissociation suggests that the costs associated with irrelevant singletons may reflect filtering processes rather than the allocation of spatial attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 6 17%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 54%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,196,270
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,854
of 29,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,772
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.