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 GB |
|---|---|
| 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
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Cognitive Neuroscience
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The attentional capture debate: the long-lasting consequences of a misnomer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver