4.2 Article

When irrelevant information helps: Extending the Eriksen-flanker task into a multisensory world

期刊

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 776-789

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02066-3

关键词

Flanker task; Information processing; Vision; Touch; Audition; Multisensory processing; Crossmodal attention

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Charles W. Eriksen and his wife introduced the flanker task as an experimental task to investigate selection mechanisms, initially for visual selection but later adapted for nonvisual and multisensory situations. Selection has been a core topic in psychology for nearly 120 years, and the flanker task, especially in crossmodal and multisensory variants, is now recognized as an important tool for studying selection, attention, and multisensory information processing.
Charles W. Eriksen dedicated much of his research career to the field of cognitive psychology, investigating human information processing in those situations that required selection between competing stimuli. Together with his wife Barbara, he introduced the flanker task, which became one of the standard experimental tasks used by researchers to investigate the mechanisms underpinning selection. Although Eriksen himself was primarily interested in investigating visual selection, the flanker task was eventually adapted by other researchers to investigate human information processing and selection in a variety of nonvisual and multisensory situations. Here, we discuss the core aspects of the flanker task and interpret the evidence of the flanker task when used in crossmodal and multisensory settings. Selection has been a core topic of psychology for nearly 120 years. Nowadays, though, it is clear that we need to look at selection from a multisensory perspective-the flanker task, at least in its crossmodal and multisensory variants, is an important tool with which to investigate selection, attention, and multisensory information processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据