Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Correction to: Age-related differences in the attentional white bear.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2019
Same author

Age-related differences in the attentional white bear.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2019
Same author

Top-Down Processes Override Bottom-Up Interference in the Flanker Task.

Psychological science·2016
Same author

Low level perceptual, not attentional, processes modulate distractor interference in high perceptual load displays: evidence from neglect/extinction.

Frontiers in psychology·2014
Same author

Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2013
Same author

Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load.

Frontiers in psychology·2013

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 9, 2026

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
05:58

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking

Published on: August 29, 2018

9.4K

The mutations paradigm: assessing the time course of distractor processing.

Ricardo Max1, Yehoshua Tsal2

  • 1Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel. ricardo.max@nyu.edu.

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
|June 19, 2015
PubMed
Summary

Distractor processing occurs very early, with disruptive stimuli impacting responses within 17 ms. Attentional mechanisms then refine this processing, challenging existing theories of selective attention.

Keywords:
Selective attentionVisual attentionVisual perception

More Related Videos

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions
10:38

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

14.2K
Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm
12:12

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Published on: May 14, 2014

11.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 9, 2026

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
05:58

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking

Published on: August 29, 2018

9.4K
A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions
10:38

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

14.2K
Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm
12:12

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Published on: May 14, 2014

11.1K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Psychophysics

Background:

  • Understanding the precise timing of distractor processing is crucial for cognitive theories.
  • Existing models of selective attention offer different predictions regarding when distractors influence perception.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the critical time window for distractor processing using a novel "mutations paradigm."
  • To investigate the temporal dynamics of how distractors affect target processing and response selection.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a flanker task with centrally presented targets and flanking distractors.
  • Distractors mutated their identity at random times within the first 200 ms of stimulus onset.
  • Manipulated distractor types: incongruent-to-neutral, neutral-to-incongruent, and neutral-to-neutral.

Main Results:

  • Even 17 ms of incongruent distractor presentation significantly delayed response times.
  • Perceptual information accumulation from distractors ceased around 50 ms, while target information continued.
  • Attentional modulation of processing occurred between 34 and 51 ms.

Conclusions:

  • Extensive target and distractor information is acquired very early (by 17 ms).
  • Attentional selection becomes fully efficient around 50 ms.
  • Findings challenge established early-selection, late-selection, and load theories of attention.