Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Attenuation theory

Attenuation theory is a model of selective attention in cognitive psychology, proposed by Anne Treisman in 1964, positing that sensory inputs from unattended sources are not completely suppressed but instead attenuated—reduced in intensity—allowing partial processing and potential breakthrough into awareness if the stimuli are semantically significant or personally relevant.^[1] This approach contrasts with earlier strict filtering models by incorporating both early perceptual selection based on physical features (such as pitch or location) and later semantic analysis, where weakened signals can still activate meaning if they exceed variable activation thresholds influenced by contextual expectancies.^[2] Treisman's theory emerged as a refinement of Donald Broadbent's 1958 filter model, which assumed a complete bottleneck early in processing that blocked unattended information from further analysis; attenuation theory, however, accounts for empirical observations like the "cocktail party effect," where individuals detect their own name or critical words in ignored auditory channels during dichotic listening tasks.^[1] Key components include an initial sensory buffer storing inputs, an attenuator that diminishes irrelevant signals while preserving attended ones, and a word-recognition "dictionary" unit that evaluates attenuated inputs against stored representations, with thresholds lowered for high-priority items like proper names.^[3] Experimental evidence supporting the model derives from studies showing that semantic priming or shadowing errors occur with unattended material, indicating incomplete suppression rather than total exclusion.^[2] The theory's influence extends to modern understandings of attention, bridging auditory and visual modalities, and inspiring subsequent frameworks like late-selection models, though it has been critiqued for under-specifying the exact locus of attenuation and integration with top-down processes.^[1] Treisman's work, grounded in rigorous behavioral experiments, remains a foundational contribution to attention research, highlighting the brain's capacity for flexible, multi-level processing of environmental stimuli.^[2]

Historical Background

Early Research on Selective Attention

Following World War II, research on selective attention gained prominence due to practical challenges in human performance under information overload, particularly among radar operators and air traffic controllers who faced communication breakdowns in noisy environments. These wartime experiences highlighted the need to understand how individuals filter relevant signals from irrelevant noise, spurring investigations at institutions like the British Medical Research Council's Applied Psychology Research Unit, where psychologists examined auditory processing limits.^[4]^[5] A foundational methodology in this era was the dichotic listening task, pioneered by E. Colin Cherry in his 1953 experiments, where participants wore headphones delivering different spoken messages simultaneously to each ear and were instructed to report the content of only one designated message. Cherry's work simulated real-world scenarios of competing auditory inputs, such as conversations in crowded settings, revealing the brain's capacity to prioritize one stream while largely suppressing the other. To enhance focus on the target message, Cherry introduced the shadowing technique, in which subjects repeated aloud the attended auditory input in real time, thereby maintaining engagement and minimizing distraction from the unattended channel; this method underscored the cognitive demands of processing information amid overload.^[6]^[7] Early studies using these paradigms consistently demonstrated that individuals could detect basic physical alterations in the unattended message, such as a sudden change in voice gender, intensity, or onset timing, but exhibited marked difficulty in grasping its semantic meaning or linguistic content. For instance, participants rarely noticed if the unattended message switched languages mid-stream or contained meaningful words unless tied to salient physical cues. These findings illustrated a preliminary stage of sensory analysis for ignored inputs, setting the stage for theoretical syntheses like Broadbent's filter model.^[6]^[7]^[8]

Broadbent's Filter Model

Donald Broadbent's filter model, introduced in his 1958 book Perception and Communication, proposed an early selection mechanism for attention that acts as a bottleneck in processing sensory information. The model conceptualizes the human nervous system as a single-channel processor with limited capacity, capable of handling only one stream of information at a time, thereby necessitating selective filtering to manage overload from multiple sensory inputs. This filtering occurs early in the perceptual process, blocking unattended stimuli based solely on their physical characteristics—such as pitch, loudness, intensity, spatial location, or frequency—before any semantic or meaning-based analysis can take place.^[9] The model's information flow can be diagrammed as a sequential pathway: sensory input first enters a temporary sensory buffer for short-term storage, then passes through the filter, which selects channels based on physical features relevant to the current task; selected information proceeds to the limited capacity processor for deeper analysis, and finally reaches output systems for response generation or long-term storage. As Broadbent described, "We may call this general point of view the Filter Theory, since it supposes a filter at the entrance to the nervous system which will pass some classes of stimuli but not others."^[9] The filter operates automatically, prioritizing novel or intense stimuli that share common physical traits, ensuring that only task-relevant channels advance while others are completely excluded.^[9] Empirical support for the model derives from dichotic listening experiments, where participants receive simultaneous messages to each ear and are instructed to attend to one. Subjects accurately report the semantic content of the attended message but fail to recall meaning from the unattended ear, though they can detect basic physical changes like a shift in speaker gender or tone—demonstrating complete exclusion of non-physical information. For instance, reversed speech in the unattended channel often goes unnoticed, confirming that filtering prevents semantic processing.^[9] These findings align with the model's prediction of early, all-or-nothing selection, as "one does indeed listen to only one channel at a time."^[9] Broadbent's framework was profoundly influenced by information theory and cybernetics, drawing analogies between human perception and communication channels with finite bandwidth. From information theory, the model incorporates concepts of capacity limits measured in bits per second, where excessive input rates overwhelm the system, necessitating selective attenuation akin to signal filtering in noisy channels. Cybernetic principles further shaped the design, viewing the filter as a control mechanism with feedback loops that adapt to task demands, much like a radio tuning out interference or a machine translator prioritizing inputs. As Broadbent noted, "A nervous system acts to some extent as a single communication channel, so that it is meaningful to regard it as having a limited capacity."^[9]

Transition to Attenuation Theory

In the late 1950s, Broadbent's filter model faced significant challenges from empirical findings suggesting that unattended stimuli could occasionally influence perception, contradicting the notion of a complete early-stage block. One prominent criticism arose from studies demonstrating "breakthrough" effects, where information from ignored channels penetrated awareness under specific conditions. For instance, Neville Moray's 1959 experiments revealed that participants in dichotic listening tasks could detect their own name presented in the unattended ear with notable frequency, implying that semantic content was not entirely filtered out early in processing. Further evidence came from shadowing tasks, where listeners repeating one message occasionally reported semantic intrusions from the unattended stream, such as related words or phrases that altered their responses. These observations, documented in early 1960s research, highlighted the model's rigidity in assuming an all-or-nothing selection based solely on physical characteristics like pitch or location. To address these limitations, Anne Treisman, working at Oxford University and drawing on influences from linguistic analysis and perceptual psychology, proposed the attenuation theory in 1960 as a refinement of Broadbent's framework. Published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, her model introduced the concept of partial signal reduction rather than total elimination, positing that unattended inputs are weakened—attenuated—allowing for potential late-stage semantic processing if their intensity or relevance exceeds a dynamic threshold.^[2] This shift marked a key evolution from Broadbent's strict, binary filter— an absolute barrier operating pre-semantically—to Treisman's graded attenuator, which suppressed but did not erase irrelevant signals, thereby accommodating breakthrough phenomena while preserving an early selection mechanism.

Key Elements of the Attenuation Model

Attenuation Mechanism

In Treisman's attenuation theory of selective attention, the core mechanism involves reducing the intensity of unattended sensory inputs rather than fully blocking them, thereby permitting limited further processing if the signal remains sufficiently strong or salient. This attenuation occurs after an initial sensory analysis, weakening the competitive impact of irrelevant stimuli while preserving the dominance of the attended channel. As a result, unattended information can potentially access higher cognitive stages, such as semantic interpretation, under conditions of low attenuation or high inherent signal strength. The process incorporates early feature detection through a filter-like stage that performs basic physical analysis on all inputs, identifying attributes like pitch, intensity, location, and temporal sequence for both attended and unattended streams. Following this analysis, the unattended input is attenuated before transmission to a subsequent network of semantic analyzers, often conceptualized as a "mental dictionary" of word or meaning detectors. This stepwise progression ensures that physical features are extracted pre-attenuation, but deeper linguistic or contextual processing of unattended material is dampened, reducing its likelihood of activation unless the attenuation level is overcome. A key aspect of the mechanism is the phenomenon of "leakage," whereby attenuated unattended messages can still exert influence on behavior or reach awareness, particularly when attenuation is insufficient due to elevated signal intensity or when the content holds personal relevance, such as the listener's own name. This leakage highlights the probabilistic nature of the process, where unattended stimuli are not discarded but persist at a subdued level, capable of intermittent breakthrough based on contextual or motivational factors. The attenuation mechanism operates on synthesized perceptual streams—coherent auditory units formed by integrating detected features into probable messages—rather than disparate individual elements. This organization precedes or coincides with attenuation, ensuring that weakening applies to meaningful wholes, such as ongoing speech narratives, thereby maintaining the structural integrity of the input during selective processing. Recognition thresholds for these attenuated streams are modulated by the degree of reduction, allowing variable detectability.

Recognition Thresholds

In Anne Treisman's attenuation model of selective attention, the recognition threshold refers to the minimum level of signal strength or activation required for a stimulus to be consciously perceived or subjected to full semantic processing.^[10] This threshold determines whether an attenuated input progresses beyond initial feature analysis to higher-level recognition, allowing only sufficiently activated stimuli to enter awareness.^[11] For attended stimuli, recognition thresholds are low, facilitating easy detection and detailed processing even at reduced signal intensities. In contrast, unattended stimuli face elevated thresholds due to attenuation, making detection more difficult unless their activation is sufficiently amplified to surpass this barrier.^[10] This variability ensures that relevant information receives priority while irrelevant inputs are largely suppressed, though not entirely eliminated.^[11] Several factors can lower recognition thresholds for unattended inputs, increasing their chances of breakthrough. High word frequency reduces thresholds, as common words require less activation for recognition compared to rare ones.^[10] Similarly, contextual predictability temporarily decreases thresholds by priming expected stimuli, while emotional salience—such as one's own name—permanently lowers them, enabling salient unattended information to capture attention.^[11] These adjustable thresholds, applied within the model's analyzer hierarchy, theoretically account for phenomena like the "cocktail party effect," where rare or personally relevant words in an unattended channel can penetrate attenuation and reach conscious awareness despite overall suppression.^[10]

Analyzer Hierarchy

In Treisman's attenuation model, the analyzer hierarchy forms a multi-level processing structure that handles input from both attended and unattended channels after the initial attenuation stage. At the base level, feature detectors operate in parallel to identify low-level physical attributes of the auditory signal, such as pitch, loudness, and spatial location. These outputs then progress to word detectors, referred to as dictionary units, which sequentially match patterns to recognize specific words or syllables. At the apex, semantic analyzers integrate this information to extract higher-level meaning, including grammatical relations and contextual interpretation, but only if prior levels achieve sufficient activation.^[12] Dictionary units serve as specialized, neural-like detectors calibrated to distinct word patterns, enabling partial processing of attenuated signals without complete exclusion. Unlike channel-specific filters, these units are shared across all input streams, permitting weak signals from unattended sources to trigger recognition if they surpass the unit's activation threshold. This shared architecture accounts for occasional breakthroughs of unattended content into awareness, as the units respond probabilistically to input intensity rather than categorically blocking it.^[12] The activation thresholds within dictionary units vary dynamically, influenced by linguistic and cognitive factors to modulate recognition likelihood. Frequent words possess inherently lower thresholds due to their commonality in language use, increasing the probability of detection even under attenuation. Contextual priming further adjusts thresholds downward for words semantically related to the attended message, facilitating integration if the input aligns with ongoing comprehension. In contrast, temporary word deafness elevates thresholds for words in the attended channel under high processing demands, temporarily impairing detection of similar terms in the unattended channel and prioritizing resource allocation.^[12] This hierarchical framework determines recognition thresholds across levels, where progression depends on cumulative activation from lower tiers. Conceptually, the probability of unit activation is modeled as a function of post-attenuation signal strength and inherent unit sensitivity, allowing flexible rather than rigid selection.^[12]

Supporting Evidence

Classic Behavioral Studies

One of the foundational experiments supporting attenuation theory was Anne Treisman's 1960 dichotic listening study, where participants shadowed a message in one ear while an unattended message played in the other. In this setup, semantic intrusions from the unattended channel occurred when words formed meaningful continuations of the attended message, such as reporting "I saw the girl song was wishing" when "girl" was attended and "song was wishing" unattended, indicating partial semantic processing rather than complete filtering.^[13] These intrusions were more frequent when contextual expectancies aligned across channels, suggesting that attenuated signals could still activate higher-level analyzers if thresholds were met.^[13] Further evidence came from Treisman's manipulations of message onset in selective listening tasks during the 1960s. When the unattended message was delayed relative to the attended one, participants were more likely to detect and report content from it, particularly if it semantically overlapped with the shadowed stream, as the attenuation allowed gradual buildup of activation over time.^[12] This breakthrough effect diminished when messages started simultaneously, supporting the idea of a time-dependent attenuation process that permits late-stage analysis under certain conditions.^[12] Bilingual shadowing experiments reinforced the role of late semantic processing in attenuation theory. In Treisman's 1964 study, bilingual participants shadowed an English message in one ear while a French message played unattended in the other; detection of the unattended content increased dramatically when it switched to English and repeated the attended message, implying that language-specific analysis occurred post-attenuation only when matching the attended channel's linguistic context.^[12] This demonstrated that unattended inputs undergo dictionary-like evaluation, bypassing early strict filters. The cocktail party effect provided additional behavioral validation through autonomic responses to personally relevant stimuli. In Corteen and Wood's 1972 experiment, participants previously conditioned to city names via mild shocks showed skin conductance responses (SCRs) when those words appeared in the unattended channel during shadowing, even without conscious report; similarly, their own names elicited SCRs, indicating involuntary semantic processing of attenuated signals despite focused attention elsewhere.^[14] These physiological breakthroughs highlighted how attenuation allows breakthrough for high-priority or conditioned content, challenging early-selection models.^[14]

Neuroscientific Correlates

Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide key electrophysiological evidence for attenuation processes in selective attention. In seminal work, the N1 component (peaking at 80–110 ms post-stimulus) shows enhancement for attended auditory stimuli compared to unattended ones, indicating early sensory filtering, while the P3 component (peaking at 250–400 ms) emerges for task-relevant detections in the attended channel but is attenuated or absent for ignored inputs unless they are highly salient.^[15] This supports partial processing of unattended stimuli, as demonstrated in the cocktail party effect where one's own name in an ignored auditory stream elicits a robust P3 response (latency around 760 ms, posterior distribution), reflecting breakthrough of attenuation for personally relevant information.^[16] Recent studies in the 2020s have extended these findings using neural tracking techniques to examine dynamic attenuation during ongoing speech. For instance, EEG analyses reveal that unattended speech envelopes are tracked with reduced fidelity compared to attended ones, but salience or task relevance can modulate this suppression, aligning with attenuation theory's prediction of graded rather than all-or-nothing filtering.^[17] These updates confirm that early ERP components like N1 remain sensitive to attentional states in complex, naturalistic listening environments, bridging classic paradigms with modern neural entrainment measures. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies further corroborate attentional modulation in the auditory cortex, showing greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses for attended versus attenuated streams. Early work demonstrated that attention filters sounds by altering activation patterns in core auditory regions, with stronger responses to task-relevant inputs.^[18] More recent investigations in multitalker scenarios (2023–2025) highlight graded suppression: in noisy auditory scenes, relevant speech elicits enhanced envelope tracking in bilateral Heschl's gyrus and superior temporal gyrus, while non-relevant speech shows weaker or negative tracking in areas like the middle superior temporal sulcus, correlating with comprehension accuracy (ρ = 0.607).^[19] This indicates top-down attenuation reduces distractor representation without complete elimination. High attentional load amplifies attenuation effects, particularly involving prefrontal regions for distractor suppression. Under increased cognitive demand, such as in tasks requiring statistical learning of distractor regularities, prefrontal connectivity patterns strengthen to modulate habituation and inhibit irrelevant auditory inputs, enhancing overall selective processing.^[20] A 2024 study on auditory distractor predictability further shows that learning subtle statistical patterns in irrelevant speech leads to prefrontal-driven suppression, reducing neural responses to expected distractors and supporting attenuation's role in load-dependent filtering.^[21] Integrating these findings, recent developments emphasize neural speech tracking models where selective attention amplifies entrainment to the target talker while attenuating competitors in multitalker settings. A 2025 eNeuro study demonstrates that attentional focus enhances tracking accuracy for the attended speaker's neural representation relative to non-targets, providing physiological validation for attenuation theory's hierarchical analyzer and threshold mechanisms in real-world scenarios.^[17]

Theoretical Comparisons and Criticisms

Rival Attention Models

Late selection models, such as that proposed by Deutsch and Deutsch in 1963, posit that all sensory inputs undergo full semantic analysis prior to any attentional selection, allowing unattended stimuli to influence response choices based on their meaning.^[22] This framework contrasts sharply with attenuation theory's early-stage partial filtering, where physical characteristics attenuate unattended inputs before deeper processing, preventing complete semantic evaluation for most distractors.^[22] In the Deutsch and Deutsch model, selection occurs only at the response stage, implying that the perceptual system processes multiple streams in parallel without early suppression mechanisms akin to attenuation.^[22] Capacity models of attention, exemplified by Kahneman's 1973 framework, conceptualize attention as a limited pool of mental resources that must be allocated across tasks, with performance depending on the demands of concurrent activities.^[23] Unlike attenuation theory's focus on stimulus-specific filtering, this approach views attenuation as one possible outcome of resource distribution, where high-demand tasks deplete capacity and indirectly suppress processing of unattended information through effort allocation.^[23] Kahneman emphasized that arousal and intention modulate this capacity, allowing flexible prioritization without rigid early or late selection boundaries.^[23] Treisman's feature integration theory, developed in 1980, extends elements of her earlier attenuation model by proposing that visual attention involves pre-attentive parallel processing of basic features (e.g., color, shape) followed by serial binding of these features into coherent objects, requiring focused attention for conjunctions.^[24] This theory builds on attenuation by incorporating a post-attenuation stage where attenuated features are integrated only if they exceed thresholds, but it shifts emphasis toward visual search paradigms rather than auditory filtering, highlighting binding errors like illusions in crowded displays.^[24] In contrast to pure attenuation, feature integration underscores top-down guidance in feature maps to resolve ambiguities after initial parallel registration.^[24] More recent Bayesian approaches, particularly predictive coding models from the late 2010s and 2020s, frame attention as a process of minimizing prediction errors through hierarchical inference, where the brain generates top-down expectations to suppress predictable sensory inputs and amplify surprises.^[25] These models align with attenuation's suppression of familiar or low-relevance signals but differ by emphasizing active inference, in which attention dynamically updates priors based on contextual epistemic value rather than fixed thresholds or resource limits.^[25] For instance, selective attention emerges from foraging for information that reduces uncertainty, integrating bottom-up signals with generative models in a probabilistic manner, as seen in computational simulations of visual foraging tasks.^[25] This Bayesian perspective thus reinterprets attenuation-like mechanisms as part of a broader scheme for efficient coding under uncertainty.^[25]

Limitations of Attenuation Theory

Attenuation theory, originally formulated based on auditory selective listening experiments, exhibits significant limitations in explaining visual attention mechanisms, where feature binding and spatial selection play more prominent roles than simple signal attenuation. The model's reliance on dichotic listening paradigms makes it less applicable to visual search tasks, as evidenced by Treisman's subsequent development of feature integration theory to address visual-specific processes.^[2] Similarly, the theory provides no robust framework for multimodal integration, such as audiovisual interactions, where attention must coordinate across sensory modalities beyond mere attenuation of one channel.^[1] The model overemphasizes bottom-up processes, such as physical and semantic attenuation, while offering limited insight into top-down influences like task goals or expectations that modulate selective attention. This shortcoming is particularly evident when compared to load theory, which posits that perceptual load determines distractor processing efficiency and better accounts for how cognitive demands alter selection dynamics.^[26] Empirical support for the theory reveals gaps, including mixed findings on the variability of recognition thresholds in complex, dynamic scenes, where attenuation levels do not consistently predict performance. Recent analyses in the 2020s, drawing on neuroimaging, indicate that the model underpredicts neural suppression of distractors during high-load multitasking, as fMRI studies show greater interference and resource competition than the attenuation mechanism anticipates.^[27]^[28] As an early framework, attenuation theory lacks compatibility with modern neuroscience concepts like predictive processing, which emphasizes hierarchical error minimization through prior expectations rather than passive signal weakening. It also fails to address key phenomena such as the attentional blink, a temporal processing deficit in rapid serial visual presentation, or inhibition of return, a spatial bias against re-attending cued locations. From a developmental standpoint, the theory does not incorporate how attenuation efficiency evolves with age, despite evidence that selective attention matures progressively in children, with improvements in distractor suppression emerging between ages 5 and 10 through neural and cognitive refinements.^[29]

References

[1]
How the deployment of visual attention modulates auditory distraction
Jul 9, 2019 · Anne Treisman's attenuation theory is a pivotal chapter in the early cognitive psychology of attention that focused on a supposed structural ...
[2]
[PDF] Anne Treisman - SfN
Apr 16, 2014 · Anne Treisman explored the mechanisms of attention, first in audition and later in visual perception. She proposed the “filter attenuation” ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[3]
attenuation theory - APA Dictionary of Psychology
Apr 19, 2018 · [proposed in 1960 by British psychologist Anne Marie Treisman (1935– )] ... 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Telephone: (800) ...
[4]
[PDF] Applied History of Psychology/History of Research on Attention
This research originated from concerns about the performance of radar operators in World War II detecting infrequently occurring signals. Cherry. (1953) ...
[5]
A selective review of selective attention research from the past century
Celebrated examples include Donald Broadbent's filter theory of attention, which set the agenda for most subsequent work; and Anne Treisman's revisions of ...
[6]
[PDF] Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with
SEPTEMBER, 1953. Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears*. E. COLIN CHERRY. Imperial College, University of London, England ...Missing: selective | Show results with:selective
[7]
Chapter 2: Attention - Sage Publishing
Cherry (1953) assumed that all the deficiencies in selective attention exhibited by listeners in his experiments were due to the complexities and ...
[8]
[PDF] Broadbent's filter theory Cherry: The cocktail party problem
Cherry (1953) found that we use physical differences between the various auditory messages to select the one of interest. These physical differences include ...Missing: E. | Show results with:E.
[9]
[PDF] Perception and - Communication Cache
Page 1. Perception and. Communication. D.E.Broadbent. Applied Psychology Unit of ... 1958. D. E. Broadbent. First Published 1958. Reprinted 1964. Second ...
[10]
Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention
The first result supports Treisman's suggestion (1960) that the filter acts by attenuating rather than blocking irrelevant signals. The second may give a ...
[11]
Anne Marie Treisman. 27 February 1935—9 February 2018 - Journals
Mar 18, 2020 · The psychologist Anne Treisman dedicated her career to the study of attention and perception, a central concern of cognitive science.
[12]
The Effect of Irrelevant Material on the Efficiency of Selective Listening
Treisman, "Attention and Speech," Doctoral thesis, Oxford, 1961, 28,. 22. SBroadbent, op. cit., 1958, 73-80. Page 5. EFFICIENCY OF SELECTIVE LISTENING 537.
[13]
Contextual cues in selective listening - Taylor & Francis Online
Apr 7, 2008 · Abstract. Two messages were presented dichotically and subjects were asked to “shadow” whatever they heard on one ear.
[14]
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0032759
[15]
Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain - PubMed
Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science. 1973 Oct 12;182(4108):177-80. doi: 10.1126/science.182.4108.177. Authors. S A Hillyard ...
[16]
Are They Calling My Name? Attention Capture Is Reflected in the ...
Mar 21, 2021 · It is known that hearing the own name elicits a P3 ERP component ... Attentional selection in a cocktail party environment can be decoded from ...
[17]
Neural Speech Tracking during Selective Attention - eNeuro
Paying attention to a target talker in multitalker scenarios is associated with its more accurate neural tracking relative to competing non-target speech.
[18]
Attentional modulation of human auditory cortex - PubMed - NIH
Attention powerfully influences auditory perception, but little is understood about the mechanisms whereby attention sharpens responses to unattended sounds ...Missing: attenuation theory
[19]
FMRI speech tracking in primary and non-primary auditory cortex ...
Sep 30, 2024 · These results indicate that the fMRI signal tracks cortical responses and attention effects related to continuous speech.Missing: scenarios | Show results with:scenarios
[20]
Attentional control influence habituation through modulation of ...
Jul 1, 2024 · Attentional control influence habituation through modulation of connectivity patterns within the prefrontal cortex: Insights from stereo-EEG.
[21]
Predicting the Irrelevant: Neural Effects of Distractor Predictability ...
Jan 24, 2025 · We show that the listening brain extracts subtle statistical regularities from a sequence of irrelevant speech items.<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] ATTENTION: SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS1 Stanford ...
Pertinent to this assumption is the dis- covery by Hubel, Henson, Rupert, and. Galambos (1959) of what they term “attention” units in the auditory cortex.<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
[PDF] Attention and Effort - Amazon S3
The book is intended for graduate students and for advanced un- dergraduates studying the role of attention in perception and in per- formance. It consists ...
[24]
[PDF] A Feature-Integration Theory of Attention - IIHM
A new hypothesis about the role of focused attention is proposed. The feature-integration theory of attention suggests that attention must be directed.
[25]
Introducing a Bayesian model of selective attention based on active ...
Sep 26, 2019 · This paper introduces a formal model of selective attention based on active inference and contextual epistemic foraging.
[26]
Selective Attention Theory: Broadbent & Treisman's Attenuation Model
Jun 11, 2023 · The theory suggests that an internal “filter” selects which stimuli to process based on their physical properties, while the remaining ...
[27]
Functional Localization of an Attenuating Filter within Cortex for a ...
Jul 8, 2020 · Responses to unattended stimuli, however, are suppressed by an attenuating filter at some point along the processing stream (Treisman, 1964).<|separator|>
[28]
A Review of Childhood Developmental Changes in Attention as ...
May 1, 2024 · This review aims to present age-related changes in the neuroelectric responses of typically developing children (TDC) who are presumed to meet developmental ...Missing: attenuation | Show results with:attenuation