Abstract
The article by Luck, Gaspelin, Folk, Remington and Theeuwes (2021, Visual Cognition, 29, 1–21) attempts to integrate the views currently defended by prominent actors in the “attentional-capture” debate. However, it glosses over important differences that remain between the competing accounts. In this commentary, I suggest that many of the lingering divergences are rooted in the fact that the authors often base their conclusions on net capture / suppression effects rather than on the modulation of these effects by relevant variables. I illustrate with two concrete examples, how relying on the presence vs. absence of attentional capture or suppression prompts the authors to sacrifice parsimony in order to account for their findings.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 544-547 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Visual Cognition |
Volume | 29 |
Issue number | 9 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2021 |
Keywords
- Salience
- attention
- attentional set
- suppression
- visual search
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Cognitive Neuroscience