Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: Implications for perceptual load and dilution theories

Paige E. Scalf, Ana Torralbo, Evelina Tapia, Diane M. Beck

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Both perceptual load theory and dilution theory purport to explain when and why task-irrelevant information, or so-called distractors are processed. Central to both explanations is the notion of limited resources, although the theories differ in the precise way in which those limitations affect distractor processing. We have recently proposed a neurally plausible explanation of limited resources in which neural competition among stimuli hinders their representation in the brain. This view of limited capacity can also explain distractor processing, whereby the competitive interactions and bias imposed to resolve the competition determine the extent to which a distractor is processed. This idea is compatible with aspects of both perceptual load and dilution models of distractor processing, but also serves to highlight their differences. Here we review the evidence in favor of a biased competition view of limited resources and relate these ideas to both classic perceptual load theory and dilution theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberArticle 243
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume4
Issue numberMAY
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 27 2013

Fingerprint

Brain

Keywords

  • Competition
  • Dilution
  • Limited capacity
  • Limited resources
  • Perceptual load

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources : Implications for perceptual load and dilution theories. / Scalf, Paige E.; Torralbo, Ana; Tapia, Evelina; Beck, Diane M.

In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 4, No. MAY, Article 243, 27.06.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{9352f4f0246b43b98af62f54fd219468,
title = "Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: Implications for perceptual load and dilution theories",
abstract = "Both perceptual load theory and dilution theory purport to explain when and why task-irrelevant information, or so-called distractors are processed. Central to both explanations is the notion of limited resources, although the theories differ in the precise way in which those limitations affect distractor processing. We have recently proposed a neurally plausible explanation of limited resources in which neural competition among stimuli hinders their representation in the brain. This view of limited capacity can also explain distractor processing, whereby the competitive interactions and bias imposed to resolve the competition determine the extent to which a distractor is processed. This idea is compatible with aspects of both perceptual load and dilution models of distractor processing, but also serves to highlight their differences. Here we review the evidence in favor of a biased competition view of limited resources and relate these ideas to both classic perceptual load theory and dilution theory.",
keywords = "Competition, Dilution, Limited capacity, Limited resources, Perceptual load",
author = "Scalf, {Paige E.} and Ana Torralbo and Evelina Tapia and Beck, {Diane M.}",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "27",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00243",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",
number = "MAY",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources

T2 - Implications for perceptual load and dilution theories

AU - Scalf, Paige E.

AU - Torralbo, Ana

AU - Tapia, Evelina

AU - Beck, Diane M.

PY - 2013/6/27

Y1 - 2013/6/27

N2 - Both perceptual load theory and dilution theory purport to explain when and why task-irrelevant information, or so-called distractors are processed. Central to both explanations is the notion of limited resources, although the theories differ in the precise way in which those limitations affect distractor processing. We have recently proposed a neurally plausible explanation of limited resources in which neural competition among stimuli hinders their representation in the brain. This view of limited capacity can also explain distractor processing, whereby the competitive interactions and bias imposed to resolve the competition determine the extent to which a distractor is processed. This idea is compatible with aspects of both perceptual load and dilution models of distractor processing, but also serves to highlight their differences. Here we review the evidence in favor of a biased competition view of limited resources and relate these ideas to both classic perceptual load theory and dilution theory.

AB - Both perceptual load theory and dilution theory purport to explain when and why task-irrelevant information, or so-called distractors are processed. Central to both explanations is the notion of limited resources, although the theories differ in the precise way in which those limitations affect distractor processing. We have recently proposed a neurally plausible explanation of limited resources in which neural competition among stimuli hinders their representation in the brain. This view of limited capacity can also explain distractor processing, whereby the competitive interactions and bias imposed to resolve the competition determine the extent to which a distractor is processed. This idea is compatible with aspects of both perceptual load and dilution models of distractor processing, but also serves to highlight their differences. Here we review the evidence in favor of a biased competition view of limited resources and relate these ideas to both classic perceptual load theory and dilution theory.

KW - Competition

KW - Dilution

KW - Limited capacity

KW - Limited resources

KW - Perceptual load

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879258147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879258147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00243

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00243

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23717289

AN - SCOPUS:84879258147

VL - 4

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - MAY

M1 - Article 243

ER -