This study was designed to seek hypnotizability-related differences in attention temporal dynamics. For this purpose, an iconic version of the Attentional Blink Task (AB) was performed on 18 highly (Highs, score 9-12, SHSS form C) and 18 low susceptible individuals (Lows, score 0-3). The procedure consisted of two tasks in which two animal shapes (a coloured animal, Target, and a black butterfl y, Probe) appeared in close temporal proximity within a rapid stream of distractors (black animals). In the Single task only Probe detection was required; in the Conditional task, Target identifi cation was also requested. In this case, competition between Target and Probe for limited attentional resources decreases Probe visibility as a function of the time lag from Target (AB effect). A similar AB effect occurred in the two groups; nonetheless, Probe detection scores at the shorter lags were frequently higher in Highs than in Lows. This suggests that time constraints could affect the performance of Highs less than Lows, but also that the two groups could differ in attention capturing mechanisms, i.e. automatic capture by colour at the shorter lag. Moreover, Highs scores on Target identifi cation were lower than Lows' ones indicating an impairment of Highs when engaged in dual tasks.
Hypnotizabilityand temporal dynamics of attention: a study on the Attentional Blink effect
CASTELLANI, ELEONORA;SEBASTIANI, LAURA
2009-01-01
Abstract
This study was designed to seek hypnotizability-related differences in attention temporal dynamics. For this purpose, an iconic version of the Attentional Blink Task (AB) was performed on 18 highly (Highs, score 9-12, SHSS form C) and 18 low susceptible individuals (Lows, score 0-3). The procedure consisted of two tasks in which two animal shapes (a coloured animal, Target, and a black butterfl y, Probe) appeared in close temporal proximity within a rapid stream of distractors (black animals). In the Single task only Probe detection was required; in the Conditional task, Target identifi cation was also requested. In this case, competition between Target and Probe for limited attentional resources decreases Probe visibility as a function of the time lag from Target (AB effect). A similar AB effect occurred in the two groups; nonetheless, Probe detection scores at the shorter lags were frequently higher in Highs than in Lows. This suggests that time constraints could affect the performance of Highs less than Lows, but also that the two groups could differ in attention capturing mechanisms, i.e. automatic capture by colour at the shorter lag. Moreover, Highs scores on Target identifi cation were lower than Lows' ones indicating an impairment of Highs when engaged in dual tasks.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
