Do different attention capture paradigms measure different types of capture?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
When something captures our attention, why does it do so? This topic has been hotly debated, with some arguing that attention is captured only by salient stimuli (bottom-up view) and others arguing capture is always due to a match between a stimulus and our goals (top-down view). Many different paradigms have provided evidence for 1 view or the other. If either of these strong views are correct, then capture represents a unitary phenomenon, and there should be a high correlation between capture in these paradigms. But if there are different types of capture (top-down, bottom-up), then some attention capture effects should be correlated and some should not. In 2 studies, we collected data from several paradigms used in support of claims of top-down and bottom-up capture in relatively large samples of participants. Contrary to either prediction, measures of capture were not strongly correlated. Results suggest that capture may in fact be strongly determined by idiosyncratic task demands and strategies. Relevant to this lack of relations among tasks, we observed that classic measures of attention capture demonstrated low reliability, especially among measures used to support bottom-up capture. Implications for the low reliability of capture measures are discussed. We also observed that the proportion of participants demonstrating a pattern of responses consistent with capture varied widely among classic measures of capture. Overall, results demonstrate that, even for relatively simple laboratory measures of attention, there are still important gaps in knowledge regarding what these paradigms measure and how they are related.
