2011/01/01 by Daryl E. Wilson, Miya Muroi, Colin M. MacLeod · 71 citations
Decision Sciences · Engineering · Neuroscience · Psychology · #Artificial intelligence #Cognitive psychology #Computer science #Contrast (vision) #Cued speech #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics #Engineering #Interference (communication) #Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies #Neuroscience #Perception #Psychology #Set (abstract data type) #Spare part #Task (project management) #Telecommunications #Visual perception and processing mechanisms
paper · doi:10.1037/a0021433
published in Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance 37(2), 319-335 (American Psychological Association)
openalex publication_date 2011/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
Lavie and Tsal (1994) proposed that spare attentional capacity is allocated involuntarily to the processing of irrelevant stimuli, thereby enabling interference. Under this view, when task demands increase, spare capacity should decrease and distractor interference should decrease. In support, Lavie and Cox (1997) found that increasing perceptual load by increasing search set size decreased interference from an irrelevant distractor. In three experiments, we manipulated the cue set size (number of cued locations) independently of the display set size (number of letters presented). Increasing the display set size reduced distractor interference regardless of whether the additional letters were relevant to the task. In contrast, increasing the cue set size increased distractor interference. Both findings are inconsistent with the load explanation, but are consistent with a proposed two-stage dilution account.