THEORIES OF

ATTENTION
EARLY THEORIES
➢ Limited amount of information can be processed at any given time .
➢ “bottleneck’’- a common metaphor.

➢ The narrow neck of a bottle restricts the flow into or out of the bottle.
➢ Bottleneck theories proposed a similar narrow passageway in human
information processing.
➢ In other words, this bottleneck limits the quantity of information to which we
can pay attention.

➢ So, when one message is currently flowing through a bottleneck, the other messages
must be left behind.

➢ Researchers proposed many variations of this bottleneck theory (e.g., Broadbent,

1958; Treisman, 1964).
Broadbent’s Filter theory

 Information is filtered right after we notice it at the sensory level

(Broadbent, 1958)
 Multiple channels of sensory input reach an attentional filter.
 channels can be distinguished by their characteristics like loudness,
pitch, or accent.
 The filter permits only one channel of sensory information to
proceed and reach the processes of perception.
 We thereby assign meaning to our sensations.
Broadbent’s Filter theory (1958)
➢ Colin Cherry’s findings supported Broadbent’s ..

➢ Sensory information sometimes may be noticed by an unattended ear if it does not

have to be processed elaborately.

➢ If unattended info are Simple, then it will be processed (e.g., voice switching from
male to female) or voice switching to a tone.

➢ Information requiring higher perceptual processes is not noticed if not attended to

(e.g., you would likely not notice that the language in your unattended ear switches
from English to German).

➢ Filter theory (early filter) Broadbent’s filter theory maintains that the attentional
filter is set to make a selection of what message to process early in the
processing, typically before the meaning of the message is identified (Pashler, 1998).
➢ Does this mean that people can never pay attention to two
messages at once?

➢ It is the amount of information we can process at any given time

is limited.

➢ Two messages that contain little information, or that present

information slowly, can be processed simultaneously.
➢ For example, a participant may be able to attend simultaneously to
more than one message if one repeats the same word over and over again, because
it would contain little information.

➢ In contrast, messages that present a great deal of information quickly take up more
mental capacity; fewer of them can be attended to at once.

➢ The filter thus protects us from “information overload” by shutting out messages
when we hear too much information to process all at once.
Selective Filter Model - Moray

➢ Cocktail party effect shows that messages that are of high

importance to a person may break through the filter of selective
attention.

➢ According to Moray (1959), the selective filter blocks out most

information at the sensory level. But some personally important
messages are so powerful that they burst through the filtering
mechanism.
Alternative explanation to Moray
How does the filter “know” which messages are important enough
to let pass?

Alternative explanation for the name recognition finding is that

the shadowing task does not always take 100% of one’s attention.

Therefore, attention occasionally lapses and shifts to the

unattended message.

During these lapses, name recognition occurs. (Pashler, 1998).

Attenuation Model – Annie Treisman (1960)

 Why some unattended messages pass through the Filter?

 Treisman (1960)
The two messages “switch ears” at the point indicated by the
slash mark.
 Important messages Which messages are
Moray
filter out important?

Alternative
explanation Attention occasionally Meaning- unattended
lapses and shifts to messages are
unattended messages processed when
attention lapses

Why these lapses

Selection of message is
occurred when -
partly based on the
messages switched
meaning of the message
ears?
Treisman reasoned
➢ Treisman reasoned that participants must be basing their selection
of which message to attend to at least in part on the meaning of
the message— a possibility that filter theory does not allow for.

➢ Some participants did not even notice that the passages had been
switched or that they had repeated words from the “wrong ear.”

➢ Again, this poses a problem for filter theory, which would predict
that information from the unattended channel would be shut out.
➢ Treisman (1960) proposed a modified filter theory, one she called
attenuation theory.

➢ Her findings suggested that at least some information about

unattended signals is being analyzed.

➢ Treisman proposed a theory of selective attention that involves a later

filtering mechanism.

➢ Instead of blocking stimuli out, the filter merely weakens (attenuates) the
strength of stimuli other than the target stimulus.

➢ We perceptually analyze the meaning of the stimuli and their relevance to

us, so that even a message from the unattended ear that is supposedly
irrelevant can come into consciousness and influence our subsequent
actions if it has some meaning for us.
➢ Instead of considering “unattended messages completely blocked”
before they could be processed for meaning (as in filter theory), Treisman
argued that their “volume” was “turned down.”

➢ In other words, some meaningful information in unattended messages

might still be available, even if hard to recover.

Three kinds of analysis.

1) Physical analysis: properties, such as pitch or loudness, are analyzed.
2) Linguistic analysis: a process of parsing the message into syllables and
Words.
3) Semantic analysis: processing the meaning of the message.
Attenuation Model – Annie Triesman
Late-filter model
 Deutsch and Deutsch (1963; Norman, 1968) developed a model in which the location
of the filter is even later.

 They suggested that stimuli are filtered out only after they have been analyzed for
both their physical properties and their meaning.

 This later filtering would allow people to recognize information entering the
unattended ear. For example, they might recognize the sound of their own names or
a translation of attended input (for bilinguals).
Late-filter model - Deutsch and Deutsch (1963)
Summary
➢ Broadbent’s (1958) filter theory holds that no information about the
meaning of an unattended message gets through the filter to be
retained for future use.

➢ Treisman’s (1964) attenuation theory allows for some information about

meaning getting through to conscious awareness.

➢ Note that proponents of both the early and the late-filtering

mechanisms propose that there is an attentional bottleneck through
which only a single source of information can pass.

➢ The two models differ only in terms of where they hypothesize the
bottleneck to be positioned
Treisman’s Feature-Integration Theory

 Basic elements-

Distributed Focused
attention attention

All parts of the Each item in the

scene are processed scene is processed
at the same time one at a time
➢ They are not two distinct categories, but form a continuum.

➢ Hence, we frequently use a kind of attention that is somewhere

between those two extremes.

➢ Two kinds of processing

Two kinds of processing
Distributed attention Focused attention

 Parallel processing across ➢ Slower serial processing

the field.
 Register all the features  Identify one object at a time.
simultaneously.
 A relatively low-level kind of  A more demanding kind of
processing
processing.

 necessary when the objects are

 So effortless that you are not more complex.
even aware that you’re using
it.
Treisman and Gelade (1980)
 Research on distributed attention
 Isolated features
If you process isolated features in distributed attention, then you
should be able to rapidly locate a target among its neighboring,
irrelevant items.

If the target differed from all the irrelevant items in the display
with respect to one simple feature such as color, you could quickly
detect this target.

Distributed attention can operate in a parallel fashion and relatively

automatically; the target seemed to “pop out” in Demonstration
Research on Focused attention

Combined features
➢A target that was a conjunction (or combination) of
properties.

➢Focused attention was required.

➢Focused your attention on one item at a time, using serial

processing.

➢F: People need more time to find the target when there are a
large number of distractors in a focused-attention task
Illusory conjunction
 Another effect related to feature-integration theory.

 Too many simultaneous visual tasks → an illusory

conjunction forms.

 An inappropriate combination of features, perhaps

combining one object’s shape with a nearby object’s color.

NT
Binding problem:

➢ The human visual system actually processes an object’s

features independently.

➢ Our visual system sometimes has a binding problem because it

does not represent the important features of an object as a
unified whole.
➢ Focused attention → accurate perception of an integrated object - a red,
round object.

➢ Focused attention allows the binding process to operate.

➢ Focused attention acts like a form of glue, so that an object’s color and
its shape can stick together.

Red
 N T T
➢ Illusory conjunction can be created from a verbal material also.

Eg., dax and kay

Day

➢ When we cannot use focused attention, we sometimes form illusory

conjunctions that are consistent with our expectations.
 Schema theory
 Ulric Neisser (1976)- completely different conceptualization of
attention.
 We don’t filter, attenuate, or forget unwanted material.
 Instead, we never acquire it in the first place.
 Neisser compared attention to “apple picking”.

 Neisser believes, with unattended information: It is simply left

out of our cognitive processing.
➢ Neisser and Becklen (1975) - performed a relevant
study of visual attention.

➢ They created a “selective looking” task - ‘Attending

to visually specified events’
Hand slapping
game
(2 pairs of hands)

2 video films

Passing or bouncing
a basketball
(3 people)
➢ Participants were asked to watch one of the 2 optically superimposed video
screens on which 2 kinds of things were happening.
➢ Participants in the study were asked to “shadow” (attend to) one of
the films and to press a key whenever a target event (such as a hand
slap in the first film or a ball pass in the second film) occurred.

➢ Participants could follow the correct film rather easily, even when
the target event occurred at a rate of 40 per minute in the attended
film.

➢ Participants ignored occurrences of the target event in the

unattended film.

➢ They failed to notice unexpected events in the unattended film.

➢ What explains this pattern of performance?

➢ It is the skilled perceiving rather than filtered attention.

➢ They argued that once picked up, the continuous and coherent
motions of the ballgame (or of the hand game) guide further pickup.

➢ what is seen guides further seeing.

➢ Therefore, it is unlikely to say that “filters” or “gates,” block the

irrelevant material from penetrating deeply into the “processing
system.”

➢ The ordinary perceptual skills are simply applied to the attended

episode and not to the other.
https://youtu.be/nkn3wRyb9Bk?si=5_W098u5RSd8OMTJ

https://youtu.be/UtKt8YF7dgQ?si=OIJsqWUxW0S23mDZ
Inattentional blindness

 Inattentional blindness, the phenomenon of not perceiving a stimulus that

might be literally right in front of you, unless you are paying attention to it.

 Another phenomenon known to be linked with inattentional blindness, is

Change blindness.
 Two kinds of visual processing errors:

1. Change blindness- failing to detect a change in an object or scene.

2. Inattentional blindness- fail to notice when an unexpected, but completely

visible object, suddenly appears.
➢ Daniel Simons, partially replicated the Neisser and Becklen
(1975).

➢ Four experimental conditions (each research participant was

assigned to only one condition).

➢ Participants were asked to follow either the “white team” or the

“black team” and to count the number of times the team they
were watching passed a basketball (Easy condition).

➢ [or] Keep track separately of both the number of

bounce passes and the number of aerial passes made by the
target team (Hard condition).
After 44–48 s of this action, either of two unexpected
events occurred:

1. The Umbrella-Woman condition

2. The Gorilla condition

➢46% of participants failed to notice either the umbrella

woman or the gorilla.

➢Only 44% of participants ever reported seeing a gorilla.

➢ Although this number was much greater for the subjects watching
the black team, who presumably shared more visual features with
the gorilla (dark color) than did the white team.

➢ F: Unexpected events can be overlooked.

➢ Presumably, we only perceive those events to which we attend,

especially if the unexpected event is dissimilar to the focus of our
attention, and if our attention is tightly focused somewhere else.

Unexpected event→ dissimilar → not perceived.

Normal events → dissimilarity is helpful or easily detected.