Questions: Attentional Blink and Temporal Attention Limits

Question 1

In an RSVP experiment, T2 appears immediately after T1 in the very next position (lag-1). What typically happens to T2 detection?

• A. T2 is strongly missed — the attentional system is fully occupied processing T1
• B. T2 is often successfully detected despite the minimal interval between targets
• C. T2 is detected only if the participant was pre-warned to expect two consecutive targets
• D. T2 reaches the visual system but cannot be consciously reported

Answer: (B)

Lag-1 sparing is the key counterintuitive finding: T2 appearing immediately after T1 is usually NOT missed. The attentional blink is worst at lags 2–4 (roughly 200–400ms), producing a U-shaped curve. This pattern proves the effect is not simply about the stream being too fast — if it were general overload, lag-1 would be the hardest case, not a spared one. Instead, something about T1 consolidation specifically catches closely-following stimuli within a defined temporal window.

Question 2

Which explanation best accounts for why the attentional blink occurs at lags 2–4 rather than uniformly across all temporal positions?

• A. Visual masking from subsequent RSVP items is strongest at those specific positions
• B. Short-term memory decay is fastest within the first 200–500ms of encoding
• C. The attentional system enters a processing bottleneck during T1 consolidation into working memory, temporarily preventing T2 from gaining conscious access
• D. The attentional spotlight physically relocates away from the RSVP stream after detecting T1

Answer: (C)

The dominant account connects the blink to conscious consolidation: successfully identifying T1 requires transferring it into working memory, a limited-capacity process that occupies the attentional resources needed to gate T2 into conscious representation. T2 arrives during this occupied window and cannot gain access. The boost-and-bounce model adds that T1's processing boost triggers an inhibitory rebound that actively suppresses nearby stimuli. The effect is not passive decay or masking — it is a specific refractory period in the machinery of conscious access.

Question 3

The attentional blink shows that attention itself, when successfully deployed to process one target, can impair perception of a closely following second target.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is the core paradox of the attentional blink: the very act of attending successfully to T1 produces the conditions for missing T2. The blink occurs specifically because T1 was detected and processed — not because attention failed. This overturns the intuition that 'paying attention' reliably improves perception. Under the right temporal conditions, successful attention to one thing creates a window of blindness for the next thing.

Question 4

The attentional blink is caused by the RSVP stream being presented too rapidly for the visual system to perceive items, so slowing the stream would eliminate the effect.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

The blink is not about the absolute speed of presentation — it is about the temporal interval between T1 and T2. If T2 still falls within the 200–500ms post-T1 window, the blink occurs regardless of the stream's overall rate. The U-shaped detection curve (with lag-1 sparing and recovery by lag 7–8) cannot be explained by general perceptual overload. The effect reflects a specific refractory period in conscious consolidation, not a perceptual speed limit.

Question 5

Why does the attentional blink occur within a specific 200–500ms window rather than extending indefinitely after T1?

Model answer: The blink reflects the finite time required for T1 to be consolidated into working memory — a process that occupies the attentional gating mechanism needed to admit T2 into conscious representation. Once T1 consolidation is complete (roughly 500ms post-T1), the system becomes available again and T2 detection recovers to baseline. The window is bounded because the bottleneck has a characteristic timecourse: it opens when T1 processing begins and closes when that processing completes.

The bounded timecourse is the diagnostic signature that separates the blink from general fatigue or masking. The recovery by lag 7–8 shows the system is not permanently degraded — it is temporarily occupied with a specific task (T1 consolidation) and becomes available again when that task is done. This timecourse matches predictions from working memory models and global workspace theory, both of which treat conscious access as a limited-capacity process with a finite completion time.