Compare and Contrast Early vs Late Selection Models of Attention. How Well Do They Explain How We Selectively Attend to Informatio
Compare and contrast early vs late selection models of attention. How well do they explain how we selectively attend to information?
Attention was described by William James (1890, cited in Eysenck & Keane, 2000, p130) as
“the taking possession of the mind, in clear and vivid form , of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalisation, concentration of consciousness are of its essence.”
This definition emphasises how attention is thought of as a selective process. It seems clear from common sense that we cannot attend to all stimuli at once, so some kind of selection must take place as to what information we attend to and process further, and what is disregarded.
Since the 1950’s, there has been a great deal of research into selective attention, both auditory and visual. Several different theories and models of selective attention have been proposed. One central and on-going debate in attention research has been that between early and late selection theories, i.e. at what stage of processing a stimulus does selection occur?
This essay will compare and contrast early and late selection models of attention The main examples used to illustrate similarities and differences will be Broadbent’s (1958) filter theory model (as cited in Driver, 2001) which was the first cognitive model of auditory attention, and an extreme example of early selection,(and the rival late selection model proposed by Deutsch & Deutsch (1963) . It will then go on to evaluate these along with other models as including Treisman’s (1960, as cited in Driver, 2001) attenuation model, as to how well they are able to explain the phenomenon of selective attention.
Both early and late selection models of selective attention were originally derived from research into auditory attention, attempting to explain how the human auditory system is able to process mixed Various dichotic listening experiments were conducted (Driver, 2001;
Attention was described by William James (1890, cited in Eysenck & Keane, 2000, p130) as
“the taking possession of the mind, in clear and vivid form , of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalisation, concentration of consciousness are of its essence.”
This definition emphasises how attention is thought of as a selective process. It seems clear from common sense that we cannot attend to all stimuli at once, so some kind of selection must take place as to what information we attend to and process further, and what is disregarded.
Since the 1950’s, there has been a great deal of research into selective attention, both auditory and visual. Several different theories and models of selective attention have been proposed. One central and on-going debate in attention research has been that between early and late selection theories, i.e. at what stage of processing a stimulus does selection occur?
This essay will compare and contrast early and late selection models of attention The main examples used to illustrate similarities and differences will be Broadbent’s (1958) filter theory model (as cited in Driver, 2001) which was the first cognitive model of auditory attention, and an extreme example of early selection,(and the rival late selection model proposed by Deutsch & Deutsch (1963) . It will then go on to evaluate these along with other models as including Treisman’s (1960, as cited in Driver, 2001) attenuation model, as to how well they are able to explain the phenomenon of selective attention.
Both early and late selection models of selective attention were originally derived from research into auditory attention, attempting to explain how the human auditory system is able to process mixed Various dichotic listening experiments were conducted (Driver, 2001;
References: Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53-78. Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology : A student 's handbook (4th ed.). London: Psychology Press. Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty-five years after broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111(4), 880-913 McLeod, S.A. (2008) Selective Attention. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/attention-models.html. Accessed 03/03/13 Naish, P, (2010). Attention. in Kaye, H. (Ed.). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp 29 – 59). Milton Keynes: The Open University. 7