perceptual load theory

Modern research on attention began when Colin Cherry articulated the "cocktail party problem" in 1953: at a cocktail party how do people select the conversation that they are listening to and ignore the rest?{{Cite book|title=Cognitive psychology : connecting mind, research, and everyday experience|last=Goldstein|first=E. Bruce|publisher=Thomson Wadsworth|year=2008|isbn=9780495095576|edition=2nd|location=Australia|pages=[https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00gold_0/page/14 14]|oclc=183623510|url=https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00gold_0/page/14}} Cherry performed experiments in which subjects would use a set of headphones to listen to two streams of words in different ears and selectively attend to one stream; they would then be asked about the content of the other stream. These experiments showed that subjects take in very little of the information supplied in the stream they are not focusing on.

Donald Broadbent used results of this kind of experiment to develop his filter model of attention, which suggests that humans process information with limited capacity, and therefore information must be selected by a sensory filter soon after it is received. All information in the filter that is not directly attended to will decay.{{cite book|title=Perception and Communication|last1=Broadbent|first1=Donald. E|date=1958|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York}} In contrast, Deutsch and Deutsch argued that this filtering {{cite journal|last1=Deutsch|first1=J. A.|last2=Deutsch|first2=D|title=Attention: some theoretical considerations|journal=Psychological Review|date=Jan 1963|volume=70|issue=1|pages=80–90|doi=10.1037/h0039515|pmid=14027390}} of irrelevant stimuli occurs in the late stages of processing: all of the information is processed on a sensory level, but the semantic content of the message in the unattended ear cannot access the consciousness.

Lavie attempted to resolve the early/late selection debate by arguing that both early and late selection occur depending on the stimulus presented. She introduced the concept of perceptual load, referring to the complexity of the physical stimuli, particularly the distractor stimuli. For example, searching for a lone square in a scene among surrounding circles involves relatively low perceptual load; whereas a square surrounded by many different shapes would require higher perceptual load to locate.

Perceptual load theory makes three main assumptions:

• Attentional resources are limited in capacity;
• Task-relevant stimuli are processed before task-irrelevant stimuli;
• All of the attentional resources must be used.

Thus, if the task-relevant stimulus uses all the attentional resources, none of the task-irrelevant stimuli will be processed. In high-load tasks the target's attentional resources are depleted faster than in a low-load task. The target will therefore be selected sooner and the distractors will be quickly filtered out. In a low-load task, more of the distractors will be processed because the attentional resources have not been exhausted, and the filtering step will occur later. In a low-load situation the distractors will be perceived, potentially causing an interference.{{cite journal|last1=Cartwright-finch|first1=Ula|last2=Lavie|first2=Nilli|title=The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness|journal=Cognition|date=2007|volume=102|issue=3|pages=321–340|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.002|pmid=16480973|s2cid=11075314 }}{{cite journal|last1=Lavie|first1=Nilli|last2=Hirst|first2=A|last3=de Fockhert|first3=J. W|last4=Viding|first4=E|title=Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|date=2004|volume=133|issue=3|pages=339–354|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339|pmid=15355143|s2cid=10399663 }}{{cite journal|last1=Lavie|first1=Nilli|title=Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load|journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences|date=Feb 2005|volume=9|issue=2|pages=75–82|doi=10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004|pmid=15668100|citeseerx=10.1.1.393.1015|s2cid=18139136 }}{{cite journal|last1=Rees|first1=G|last2=Frith|first2=CD|last3=Lavie|first3=Nilli|title=Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task.|journal=Science|date=Nov 1997|volume=278|issue=5343|pages=1616–1619|pmid=9374459|doi=10.1126/science.278.5343.1616}} Additionally, in some cases load conditions can be insignificant and the processing of task-irrelevant stimuli can be attributed to attentional filters.{{Cite journal |last1=Gorbatova |first1=Ksenia |last2=Anufriev |first2=Grigoriy |last3=Gorbunova |first3=Elena |date=2023-03-16 |title=Banner blindness as the suppression process: No perceptual load effect on web advertising detection |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506285.2023.2250528 |journal=Visual Cognition |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=256–276 |doi=10.1080/13506285.2023.2250528 |issn=1350-6285|url-access=subscription }}

In this model, selection occurs both in the early stages of processing (high-load condition) and in the late stages (low-load condition).

An alternative theory proposed to explain Lavie's results is distractor salience.{{cite journal|last1=Eltiti|first1=Stacy|last2=Wallace|first2=Denise|last3=Fox|first3=Elaine|date=2005|title=Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience?|journal=Perception and Psychophysics|volume=67|issue=5|pages=876–885|doi=10.3758/bf03193540|pmid=16334059|doi-access=free}} This theory argues that the salience, or prominence, of a distractor is the primary factor in causing distraction, rather than the overall load. Lavie's research showed that a high perceptual load will not ignore a distractor if the interruption has a face; however, when researchers Chunhong He and Antao Chen examined distractors, they found that a while a high perceptual load will overlook an unfamiliar interference, it will not remove a familiar distractor, regardless of whether it has a face or not.{{Cite journal |last1=He |first1=Chunhong |last2=Chen |first2=Antao |date=2010-05-01 |title=Interference from familiar natural distractors is not eliminated by high perceptual load |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-009-0252-0 |journal=Psychological Research PRPF |language=en |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=268–276 |doi=10.1007/s00426-009-0252-0 |pmid=19652997 |issn=1430-2772|url-access=subscription }} When attempting to identify features in a distractor, features such as depth, dimension, and size have no effect on perceptual load.{{Cite journal |last1=Greene |first1=Ciara M. |last2=Broughan |first2=John |last3=Hanlon |first3=Anthony |last4=Keane |first4=Seán |last5=Hanrahan |first5=Sophia |last6=Kerr |first6=Stephen |last7=Rooney |first7=Brendan |date=2021-03-17 |title=Visual Search in 3D: Effects of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Cues to Depth on the Validity of Feature Integration Theory and Perceptual Load Theory |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |language=English |volume=12 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596511 |doi-access=free |issn=1664-1078 |pmc=8009999 |pmid=33815197}}

A second alternative explanation for Lavie's results is attentional zoom, which suggests that the apparent difference between high-load and low-load conditions is not due to the overall load, but instead to the degree of localization of the participant's field of attention.{{cite journal|last1=Murray|first1=Janice E|last2=Jones|first2=Craig|date=2010|title=Attention to local form information can prevent access to semantic information|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology|volume=55|issue=2|pages=609–625|doi=10.1080/02724980143000370|pmid=12047062|s2cid=12463665 }}{{cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Zhe|last2=Cave|first2=Kyle R|date=June 2013|title=Perceptual load vs. dilution: the roles of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=4|pages=327|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00327|pmc=3675768|pmid=23761777|doi-access=free }}{{cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Zhe|last2=Cave|first2=Kyle R|date=2016|title=Identifying Visual Targets Amongst Interfering Distractors: Sorting Out the Roles of Perceptual Load, Dilution, and Attentional Zoom|journal=Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics|volume=78|issue=7|pages=1822–38|doi=10.3758/s13414-016-1149-9|pmid=27250363|url=https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/13234/1/12663623_Cave%20%26%20Chen%20%282016%29_final%20version.pdf|doi-access=free}} Attentional zoom theory proposes that participants can process distractors that are within their attentional focus. When an individual is induced to have a small attentional focus and the distractors fall outside of the focus, minimal processing of the distractors and interference is seen.{{cite journal|last1=Eriksen|first1=Charles W|last2=St James|first2=J. D.|date=1986|title=Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model|journal=Perception and Psychophysics|volume=40|issue=4|pages=225–40|doi=10.3758/BF03211502|pmid=3786090|doi-access=free}} Studies done on the relationship between attention control and perceptual load show that while load-level can be influential, it is merely one of many factors to consider when examining attention control and that the physical location of the interference is more impactful to attentional zoom than load conditions.{{cn|date=April 2025}} A larger attentional focus that includes distractors leads to a higher level of interference. On average, those with high perceptual loads have greater attentional assets than those with low-loads.{{Cite journal |last1=Moriya |first1=Jun |last2=and Tanno |first2=Yoshihiko |date=2010-12-01 |title=Attentional resources in social anxiety and the effects of perceptual load |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930903378503 |journal=Cognition and Emotion |volume=24 |issue=8 |pages=1329–1348 |doi=10.1080/02699930903378503 |issn=0269-9931|url-access=subscription }}

Lavie's PhD supervisor, Yehoshua Tsal, the senior author on the original paper, published a critical review of the perceptual load theory in 2013 with Hanna Benoni.{{cite journal|last1=Benoni|first1=H|last2=Tsal|first2=Y|date=2013|title=Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=4|page=522|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00522|pmc=3741554|pmid=23964262|doi-access=free}} The review argues that perceptual load theory has been misconstrued as a hybrid solution to the early selection versus late selection debate, and that it is instead an early selection model: selection occurs because attention is necessary for semantic processing, and the difference between high-load and low-load conditions is a result of the fact that selection is efficient in high-load conditions but inefficient in low-load conditions.

Benoni and Tsal argue that perceptual load theory deserves recognition not for proposing a hybrid model of attention, but for shifting the focus from the locus of attentional selection to the more important question of the efficiency of attentional selection. It is undecided amongst scholars if the nature of perceptual load has never been precisely defined, leading to circularity in characterizing load and in analyzing the results of differences in load.

• Attention
• Attentional control
• Inattentional blindness
• Mindfulness
• Pre-attentive processing

{{Reflist}}

Category:Attention

Category:Cognitive science

Category:Perception

Category:Psychological theories