Attention

Last updated
Focused attention Scout Girl in Concentration.jpg
Focused attention

Attention is the concentration of awareness directed at some phenomenon while excluding others. [1]

Contents

Across disciplines, the nature of this directedness is conceptualized in different ways. In cognitive psychology, attention is often described as the allocation of limited cognitive processing resources to a subset of information, thoughts, or tasks. [2] In neuropsychology, attention is understood as a set of mechanisms by which sensory cues and internal goals modulate neuronal tuning and orient behavioral and cognitive processes.

Attention is not a unitary phenomenon but an umbrella term for multiple related processes, including selective attention (prioritizing some stimuli over others), sustained attention (maintaining focus), divided attention (sharing resources across tasks), and orienting (shifting focus in space or time). These processes are supported by distributed neural networks in frontal, parietal, and subcortical regions and are closely linked to working memory, executive functions, and consciousness.

Patterns of attention also vary across cultures, especially in how individuals attend to context versus focal objects and how children are guided to manage attention in everyday activities. [3] [4]

History

16th century

John B. Watson called Juan Luis Vives the father of modern psychology.[ better source needed ] In his book De Anima et Vita, Vives argued that the more closely one attends to stimuli, the better they are retained in memory. [5]

17th century

Daniel E. Berlyne credited the first extended treatment of attention to Nicolas Malebranche, for whom attention is necessary "to keep our perceptions from being confused and imperfect". [6]

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz introduced the concept of apperception, referring to "the process by which new experience is assimilated to and transformed by the residuum of past experience of an individual to form a new whole". [7] Apperception is required for a perceived event to become a conscious event. Leibniz emphasized a reflexive, involuntary view of attention (exogenous orienting), while also recognizing voluntary, directed attention (endogenous orienting).

Johann Friedrich Herbart agreed with Leibniz's view of apperception but emphasized that new experiences must be tied to those already existing in the mind. Herbart was also among the first to stress the importance of applying mathematical modeling to the study of psychology. [5]

19th century

In the early 19th century, some theorists argued that people could not attend to more than one stimulus at a time. Later, William Hamilton likened attentional capacity to holding marbles: only a limited number can be held at once before they spill over. He proposed that more than one stimulus can be attended simultaneously. William Stanley Jevons expanded this view, suggesting that people can attend to up to four items at a time. [8]

Wilhelm Wundt introduced the systematic study of attention into psychology. He examined mental processing speed by analogy with differences in astronomical measurements: astronomers differed in the times they recorded for star transits, leading to the idea of a personal equation. Wundt argued that such differences reflect the time required to shift voluntary attention from one stimulus to another, rather than mere "observation error".

Franciscus Donders used mental chronometry to study attention, making it a major topic of investigation. Donders and his students measured the time required to identify a stimulus and select a response, developing the subtractive method to estimate the duration of specific mental processes. He distinguished between simple, choice, and go/no-go reaction times.

Hermann von Helmholtz also contributed to attention research, showing that it is possible to focus on one stimulus while still perceiving others. For example, one can fixate on the letter "u" in the word "house" while still perceiving "h", "o", "s", and "e".

A major debate of this period concerned whether it was possible to attend to two things at once (split attention).[ citation needed ] William James, in The Principles of Psychology , provided an influential definition:

Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state which in French is called distraction, and Zerstreutheit in German. [9]

James distinguished between sensorial attention (to physically present stimuli) and intellectual attention (to imagined or remembered objects). He also differentiated immediate from derived attention and identified five major effects of attention: it influences perception, conception, discrimination, memory, and reaction time.

20th century

1910–1949

During the first half of the 20th century, explicit research on attention declined as behaviorism became dominant, leading some, such as Ulric Neisser, to claim that “there was no research on attention”. Nonetheless, important work was conducted. In 1927, A. T. Jersild published research on "mental set and shift," arguing that “the fact of mental set is primary in all conscious activity”. [10] He showed that it took longer to complete a mixed list (e.g., animals, books, car models, fruits) than a pure list (e.g., only animals), highlighting costs of task switching.

In 1931, C. W. Telford identified the psychological refractory period, the delay in responding to a second stimulus when it closely follows a first, reflecting a refractory phase in the nervous system. [11]

In 1935, John Ridley Stroop developed what became known as the Stroop effect, demonstrating that task-irrelevant stimulus information (such as word meaning) can strongly interfere with performance.

1950–1999

In the 1950s, attention research was revitalized as psychology underwent the "cognitive revolution", shifting away from strict positivism and behaviorism to include unobservable mental processes as legitimate objects of study. [12]

Lecture by cognitive scientist Marie Postma (Tilburg University) on focused attention

Modern experimental work began with investigations of the "cocktail party problem" by Colin Cherry in 1953. Cherry asked how people at a noisy party can attend to one conversation while ignoring others. He studied this through dichotic listening tasks, in which participants heard two simultaneous streams of speech through headphones and were asked to shadow (repeat) one stream while ignoring the other. These paradigms were extended by Donald Broadbent and others. [13] : 112 

By the 1990s, psychologists increasingly used positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study attention in the brain. Because this equipment was typically housed in hospitals, psychologists collaborated with neurologists. Psychologist Michael Posner and neurologist Marcus Raichle pioneered imaging studies of selective attention. [14]

The adoption of neuroimaging, alongside long-standing techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG), led to extensive research on the neural basis of attention. A growing body of work identified a frontoparietal attention network implicated in the control of attention. [15]

Components

Attention is constrained by both the number of elements that can be processed and the duration of exposure. Decades of research on subitizing (the rapid apprehension of small numerosities) have supported Wundt’s early findings regarding limits on the number of items that can be held in the focus of consciousness. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

The scope of attention is related to cognitive development. [21] As the mind grasps more details about an event, it also increases the number of reasonable combinations among those elements, potentially enhancing understanding. For example, three items in the focus of consciousness have six possible combinations (3 factorial), four have 24, and six have 720 (6 factorial). [21] Empirical evidence suggests that the scope of attention in early development increases from about two items in the focal point at up to six months of age to five or more items by around five years. [21]

Recent work in educational contexts defines attention as “the state of concentration of an individual's consciousness on the process of selecting the information they require and on the process of choosing an algorithm for response actions, which involves the intensification of sensory and intellectual activities”. [22]

Intentionality

A definition of a psychological construct shapes how it is studied. In scientific literature, attention sometimes overlaps with or is confused with intentionality, partly because of ambiguities in their linguistic definitions. Intentionality has been defined as "the power of minds to be about something: to represent or to stand for things, properties and states of affairs". [23]

Although attention and intentionality may be described in similar terms, they are distinct constructs. Historically, experimental studies of attention began with Wundt’s work using a 4 x 4 matrix of randomly chosen letters, which informed his theory of attention. [24]

Wundt defined attention as “that psychical process, which is operative in the clear perception of the narrow region of the content of consciousness”. [25] His experiments suggested limits to the attentional threshold (about 3–6 letters seen during a 1/10-second exposure). [24] He distinguished between the entrance of content into consciousness (apprehension) and its elevation into the focus of attention (apperception). [26] Wundt’s theory thus emphasized attention as an active, voluntary process unfolding over time. [24]

In contrast, neuroscientific research suggests that intentionality can sometimes emerge rapidly and even unconsciously: neuronal correlates of an intentional act have been observed to precede conscious awareness of that intention (see also shared intentionality). [27] [28]

From this perspective, intentionality can be described as a mental state (“the mind being about something”), whereas attention is better understood dynamically as the process of elevating a subset of content into clear consciousness and sustaining it. The attention threshold may be viewed as the minimum time needed to clearly apprehend the intended content. Distinguishing these constructs is important for a precise scientific approach to attention.

Orienting

Orienting of attention refers to shifting focus across space, time, or modality. This can be driven by external (exogenous) or internal (endogenous) processes. External signals do not operate purely exogenously; they will capture attention and elicit eye movements primarily when they are behaviorally relevant to the observer. [29]

Exogenous orienting is typically described as stimulus-driven and automatic. [30] It is often triggered by sudden changes in the periphery and may produce reflexive saccades. Because exogenous cues usually appear in peripheral locations, they are referred to as peripheral cues. Exogenous orienting can occur even when observers know the cue is uninformative: the mere presence of the cue in a location influences responses to subsequent stimuli presented there. [31]

Many studies have examined the impact of valid and invalid cues. [29] [32] [33] [34] Typically, brief valid peripheral cues speed responses, but when the interval between cue and target exceeds ~300 ms, this benefit reverses. Posner and Cohen (1984) termed this reversal inhibition of return, in which responses to validly cued locations become slower than to invalid locations. [35]

Endogenous orienting is the intentional allocation of attention to a location or object based on goals or instructions. Endogenous cues are often presented centrally (e.g., arrows at fixation) and require interpretation and voluntary redirection of attention. These are therefore termed central cues. [36]

Comparisons of exogenous and endogenous orienting have identified several differences:

Both overlapping and distinct brain networks underlie these forms of orienting. [38] A related distinction is between bottom-up (stimulus-driven) and top-down (goal-directed) attention. Bottom-up attention (often equated with exogenous attention) is driven by stimulus properties such as motion, brightness, or sudden onset and is associated with regions in the parietal lobe, temporal lobe, and brainstem. [39] Experimental evidence supports the idea that the primary visual cortex (V1) constructs a bottom-up saliency map, [40] [41] relayed to the superior colliculus to guide attention and gaze shifts. [42]

Top-down attention (also called goal-driven, endogenous, attentional control or executive attention) is mediated primarily by the frontal cortex and basal ganglia. [39] [43] As part of the executive functions, this system is closely related to working memory, [44] conflict resolution, and inhibition. [45]

Load

Some individuals can perform certain overlearned tasks with minimal conscious attention. For example, highly trained Morse code operators have been shown to copy messages accurately while engaging in a concurrent conversation. This reflects the development of automaticity through extensive practice: once a skill is overlearned beyond 100% accuracy, its execution can become largely autonomous and require fewer attentional resources. [46]

Perceptual load theory proposes that attentional resources are limited and must be fully used. Under high perceptual load, fewer resources remain available for processing irrelevant stimuli, reducing distraction; under low load, more resources “spill over”, increasing susceptibility to distraction. [47]

In applied settings, such as education, measurement often emphasizes accuracy and reaction time (RT), which can obscure finer-grained distributions of temporal and spatial attention. [48]

Neural correlates

Eric Knudsen identified four fundamental components of attention: (a) working memory, (b) competitive selection, (c) top-down sensitivity control, and (d) salience filters. [49] [50]

At different hierarchical levels, spatial maps enhance or inhibit activity in sensory areas and guide orienting behaviors such as eye movements:

Attention is associated with characteristic changes in EEG activity. Many animals, including humans, produce gamma waves (40–60 Hz) when focusing attention on particular objects or tasks. [52] [53] [54] [55]

Another influential framework, associated with Michael Posner, divides attention into three functional networks: alerting, orienting, and executive attention, which interact with one another. [39] [56] [57] [58] [59]

Types

Although there are many ways to classify attention, researchers often distinguish several core types:

The following subsections highlight some specific forms of attention that have been emphasized in the literature.

Vigilant

Remaining focused on a non-arousing stimulus or uninteresting task for a sustained period is more difficult than attending to salient or interesting events and requires a specific form of attention called vigilant attention. [63] Vigilant attention is the ability to sustain focus on a stimulus or task that may not inherently engage interest, while resisting distraction by other stimuli or internal thoughts. [64]

Divided

Divided attention refers to attempts to allocate attention to multiple sources of information or tasks at the same time. In everyday language, this is often called multitasking. Research consistently shows that people make more errors and perform tasks more slowly when multitasking than when focusing on one task at a time. [65]

Early research examined limits on learning and perception when people performed simultaneous tasks, such as reading while listening and writing something else, [66] or listening to two different messages through each ear (dichotic listening). Later work examined divided attention in applied settings such as driving while tuning a radio [67] or driving while talking on a phone. [68]

Most contemporary research on multitasking investigates dual-task performance, often combining driving with secondary tasks such as texting, eating, or conversing. [65] These studies show that driving performance deteriorates under dual-task conditions: drivers are more error-prone, brake harder and later, drift across lanes, and show reduced awareness of their surroundings. [69] [70] [71]

There is little difference between speaking on hands-free versus hand-held phones, [72] [73] suggesting that the primary limitation is cognitive rather than motor. In contrast, passengers in the car can adapt their conversation to the demands of driving (e.g., pausing when traffic becomes complex), reducing interference. [74]

Daniel Kahneman proposed a single-pool model of attentional resources: one central pool can be flexibly allocated across tasks, but total capacity is limited. [75] Later work emphasized modality-specific and task-specific constraints, noting that interference is stronger when tasks rely on similar modalities (e.g., two verbal tasks). [76]

David Navon and Daniel Gopher proposed a modality-based model of resources, while more recent dual-task research suggests that task demands themselves are critical. [77]

Resource theory suggests that as tasks become more automatic, they consume fewer attentional resources, making divided performance more efficient. [76] Other factors, including anxiety, arousal, task difficulty, and individual skills, also shape divided attention performance. [76]

Simultaneous

Simultaneous attention refers to sustained attention to multiple events at the same time, rather than rapidly switching between them. This pattern has been documented in children in many Indigenous communities, who learn extensively by observing and participating in ongoing group activities. [78]

In such contexts, children often coordinate their actions with others while monitoring multiple ongoing events, rather than dividing attention by alternation. This differs from multitasking as typically studied in Western settings, which often involves sequentially switching between tasks.

Simultaneous attention is reflected in the way Indigenous heritage toddlers and caregivers in San Pedro coordinate activities: they frequently engage in overlapping tasks and shared focus, whereas middle-class European-descent families in the U.S. more often move back and forth between events. [3] [79] Research suggests that children with close ties to Indigenous American communities are especially keen observers. [80]

Social

Social attention concerns the allocation of processing resources in social contexts. Many studies have examined how attention is drawn to socially relevant stimuli such as faces, gaze direction, and body posture. [81] A complementary line of research shows that self-related information (e.g., one’s own face or name) automatically captures attention and is preferentially processed relative to others’ information. [82]

A synthetic view proposes that social attention spans a continuum from attending-to-self to attending-to-others. [83] In one pole, individuals prioritize self-related information; in the other, they allocate attention to others to infer intentions and desires. Mechanisms supporting these polarities may interact and compete to form a social saliency map that guides behavior. [83] Imbalances between attending-to-self and attending-to-others are implicated in conditions such as autism spectrum disorders and Williams syndrome.

Models

Clinical

Wikipedia-spotlight.jpg

In cognitive psychology there are multiple models describing how attention operates, particularly in the visual domain. These models are often treated as metaphors that guide hypothesis generation and empirical testing. A common assumption is that visual attention involves at least two stages. [84] In an initial parallel stage, information across the visual field is processed in a coarse manner. In a subsequent focused stage, attention is concentrated on a subset of items, which are processed in more detail, often in a serial fashion.

In the 20th century, the work of Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Luria contributed to neuropsychological models in which attention, memory, and activation form three co-active components of the working brain. In The Working Brain (1973) and Higher Cortical Functions in Man (1962), A. R. Luria presented a three-part model comprising (1) an attention system, (2) a mnestic (memory) system, and (3) a cortical activation system. Homskaya described these works as among Luria's major contributions to neuropsychology, integrating theoretical, clinical, and experimental perspectives. [85]

Clinically, attention is often treated as a basic prerequisite for other cognitive functions. One widely used clinical model is that of Sohlberg and Mateer. [86] Developed from work with patients recovering from brain damage and coma, this hierarchic model describes five levels of attentional functioning:

This model has been useful for evaluating attention across diverse pathologies, correlates well with everyday functioning, and informs rehabilitation programs such as Attention Process Training.

Filter

Broadbent's Filter Model of Attention proposed that sensory information is briefly held in a pre-attentive store, and a filter selects input based on simple physical characteristics (e.g., location, pitch). Selected information passes into a limited capacity processing system, while unattended inputs are blocked and not semantically processed. [13] : 115–116  This implies that information in the unattended channel does not reach meaning-level analysis, and that shifting the filter between channels requires time.

Experiments by Gray and Wedderburn and subsequent work by Anne Treisman challenged this strict early filter model, leading to refinements. In Treisman’s attenuation model, unattended inputs are not completely blocked; instead, they are attenuated and can be processed to some extent, especially if they are highly salient (e.g., a person’s own name).

Deutsch and Deutsch later proposed a late selection model in which all inputs are processed semantically, and selection occurs at the point of response or conscious access. [87] In this view, the ‘‘attentional bottleneck’’ occurs late, after semantic analysis.

Selection

Debates between early-selection and late-selection models centered on whether unattended information is processed semantically. Early-selection models (e.g., Broadbent, Treisman) posit that attention acts before full semantic analysis, whereas late-selection models (e.g., Deutsch & Deutsch) posit that semantic analysis occurs in parallel, with attention determining which representations reach awareness or guide behavior.

Nilli Lavie’s perceptual load theory offered a synthesis: under high perceptual load, processing capacity is exhausted by relevant stimuli, producing early selection; under low load, excess capacity spills over to irrelevant stimuli, producing late-selection-like effects. [88]

Spotlight

The spotlight model conceptualizes attention as a movable “beam” that enhances processing within a limited region of the visual field. The metaphor draws on William James’s idea that attention has a focus, margin, and fringe. [89] The focus is a region of high-resolution processing; the fringe is processed more coarsely; the margin marks the outer boundary.

Zoom-lens

The zoom-lens model, first introduced in 1986, [90] extends the spotlight metaphor by allowing the size of the attended region to change. Like a camera lens, the attentional “zoom” can widen or narrow. Widening the focus distributes limited resources over a larger area, reducing processing efficiency; narrowing it concentrates resources and increases efficiency. [91] The focus is thought to subtend a minimum of about 1° of visual angle. [89] [92]

Theories

Attentional engagement

Attentional engagement theory proposes an initial pre-attentive, parallel phase in which the visual scene is segmented and analyzed, followed by selective attention that determines which information enters visual short-term memory. At the pre-attentive stage, structural descriptions of objects are created across multiple spatial scales; selective attention then “engages” with particular representations for further processing. [93]

Feature integration

This section is an excerpt from Feature integration theory.[ edit ]
Feature integration theory is a theory of attention developed in 1980 by Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade that suggests that when perceiving a stimulus, features are "registered early, automatically, and in parallel, while objects are identified separately" and at a later stage in processing. The theory has been one of the most influential psychological models of human visual attention.

Perceptual load

This section is an excerpt from Perceptual load theory.[ edit ]

Perceptual load theory is a psychological theory of attention. It was presented by Nilli Lavie in the mid-nineties as a potential resolution to the early/late selection debate. [94] [95]

This debate relates to the "cocktail party problem": how do people at a cocktail party select the conversation they are listening to and ignore the others? The models of attention proposed prior to Lavie's theory differed in their proposals for the point in the information processing stream where the selection of target information occurs, leading to a heated [96] debate about whether the selection occurs "early" or "late". There were also arguments about to what degree distracting stimuli are processed.

Cultural variation

Children develop patterns of attention that reflect the cultural practices of their families, communities, and institutions. [97]

In 1955, Jules Henry proposed that societal differences in sensitivity to multiple, simultaneous signals may foster different abilities to manage several levels of attention. He linked this hypothesis to ethnographic observations of communities in which children participate in complex social networks with multiple ongoing relationships. [3]

In many Indigenous communities in the Americas, children predominantly learn by observing and pitching in to community activities. Studies suggest that keen observational attention is more common in such communities than in middle-class European-American contexts, where children often learn in settings designed specifically for them. [3] [80] In these Indigenous settings, children frequently monitor and coordinate multiple activities at once, illustrating culturally patterned forms of simultaneous and social attention.

See also

References

  1. ↑ James W (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt. pp. 403–404. Attention is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence.
  2. ↑ Anderson JR (2004). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (6th ed.). Worth Publishers. p. 519. ISBN   978-0-7167-0110-1.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Chavajay P, Rogoff B (July 1999). "Cultural variation in management of attention by children and their caregivers". Developmental Psychology. 35 (4): 1079–90. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1079. PMID   10442876.
  4. ↑ Mavritsaki, Eirini; Chua, Stephanie; Allen, Harriet A; Rentzelas, Panagiotis (2025-12-01). "Cross-cultural differences in attention: An investigation through computational modelling". Brain Organoid and Systems Neuroscience Journal. 3: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bosn.2025.01.001 . ISSN   2949-9216.
  5. 1 2 Johnson A (2004). Attention: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24. ISBN   978-0-7619-2760-0.
  6. ↑ Malebranche, Nicolas (1997). The search after truth. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press. pp. 411–412. ISBN   978-0-521-58004-5 . Retrieved 2025-11-16.
  7. ↑ Runes DD, ed. (1972). Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company.
  8. ↑ Jevons WS (9 February 1871). "The Power of Numerical Discrimination". Nature.
  9. ↑ James W (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt. pp. 403–404.
  10. ↑ Jersild AT (1927). "Mental set and shift". Archives of Psychology. 14 (89): 5–82.
  11. ↑ WELFORD, A. T. (February 1952). "THE "PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD" AND THE TIMING OF HIGH-SPEED PERFORMANCE—A REVIEW AND A THEORY" . British Journal of Psychology. General Section. 43 (1). Wiley: 2–19. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x . Retrieved 21 November 2025.
  12. ↑ Harré R (2002). Cognitive science: A philosophical introduction. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-0-7619-4746-2.
  13. 1 2 Hampson PJ, Morris PE (1996). Understanding cognition . Wiley. ISBN   978-0-631-15751-9.
  14. ↑ Raichle M (1999). "Positron Emission Tomography". The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press. Archived from the original on January 17, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2018.
  15. ↑ Scolari M, Seidl-Rathkopf KN, Kastner S (February 2015). "Functions of the human frontoparietal attention network: Evidence from neuroimaging". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 1: 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.08.003. PMC   4936532 . PMID   27398396.
  16. ↑ Freeman, Frank N. (March 1912). "Grouped Objects as a Concrete Basis for the Number Idea". The Elementary School Teacher. 12 (7): 306–314. doi:10.1086/454132. ISSN   1545-5858 . Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  17. ↑ Fernberger, Samuel W. (1921). "A Preliminary Study of the Range of Visual Apprehension". The American Journal of Psychology. 32 (1): 121–133. doi:10.2307/1413479. JSTOR   1413479.
  18. ↑ Kaufman, E. L.; Lord, M. W.; Reese, T. W.; Volkmann, J. (1949). "The Discrimination of Visual Number". The American Journal of Psychology. 62 (4): 498–525. doi:10.2307/1418556. JSTOR   1418556. PMID   15392567.
  19. ↑ Averbach, Emanuel (1963). "The span of apprehension as a function of exposure duration". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 2 (1). Elsevier BV: 60–64. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(63)80068-7. ISSN   0022-5371.
  20. ↑ Feigenson, Lisa; Carey, Susan (2003). "Tracking individuals via object-files: evidence from infants' manual search". Developmental Science. 6 (5): 568–584. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00313. ISSN   1363-755X.
  21. 1 2 3 Danilov, Igor Val; Mihailova, Sandra (2022-01-24). "A Case Study on the Development of Math Competence in an Eight-year-old Child with Dyscalculia: Shared Intentionality in Human-Computer Interaction for Online Treatment Via Subitizing". OBM Neurobiology. 6 (2): 1. doi: 10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2202122 .
  22. ↑ Artiukhov, A. A. (2024). ""The System of Prearranged Points" as a Method of Student's Knowledge Evaluation in Course of Teaching Natural-Scientific Subjects in a Secondary School by way of Example of Geography" (PDF). Mezhdunarodny'j Nauchno-issledovatel'skij Zhurnal[International Research Journal] (in Russian). 6 (144). Yekaterinburg, Russia: 3. doi:10.60797/IRJ.2024.144.87. ISSN   2303-9868.
  23. ↑ Jacob, Pierre (2003-08-07). "Intentionality". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  24. 1 2 3 Leahey, Thomas H. (1979). "Something old, something new: Attention in Wundt and modern cognitive psychology". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 15 (3): 242–252. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(197907)15:3<242::AID-JHBS2300150305>3.0.CO;2-O. PMID   11608282.
  25. ↑ Wilhelm Wundt. (1912). Introduction to Psychology, trans. Rudolf Pintner (London: Allen, 1912; reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1973), p. 16.
  26. ↑ Wilhelm Wundt. (1912). Introduction to Psychology, trans. Rudolf Pintner (London: Allen, 1912; reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1973), pp. 35-36.
  27. ↑ Andelman-Gur, Michal M.; Fried, Itzhak (2023-08-18). "Consciousness: a neurosurgical perspective". Acta Neurochirurgica. 165 (10). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 2729–2735. doi:10.1007/s00701-023-05738-9. ISSN   0942-0940. PMC   12288193 . PMID   37594639.
  28. ↑ Fried, Itzhak; Mukamel, Roy; Kreiman, Gabriel (2011). "Internally Generated Preactivation of Single Neurons in Human Medial Frontal Cortex Predicts Volition". Neuron. 69 (3). Elsevier BV: 548–562. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.045. ISSN   0896-6273. PMC   3052770 . PMID   21315264.
  29. 1 2 Posner MI (February 1980). "Orienting of attention". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 32 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1080/00335558008248231. PMID   7367577. S2CID   2842391.
  30. ↑ Mayer AR, Dorflinger JM, Rao SM, Seidenberg M (October 2004). "Neural networks underlying endogenous and exogenous visual-spatial orienting". NeuroImage. 23 (2): 534–41. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.027. PMID   15488402. S2CID   42196703.
  31. ↑ Friesen CK, Kingstone A (1998). "The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze" (PDF). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 5 (3): 490–495. doi: 10.3758/BF03208827 . S2CID   672869.
  32. ↑ Cheal M, Lyon DR (November 1991). "Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology. 43 (4): 859–80. doi:10.1080/14640749108400960. PMID   1775667. S2CID   13304439.
  33. ↑ Jonides J (1981). "Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye movement". In Long JB, Braddely AD (eds.). Attention and performance IX. London: Erlbaum. pp. 187–203.
  34. ↑ Tsal Y (August 1983). "Movements of attention across the visual field". Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 9 (4): 523–30. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.4.523. PMID   6224890.
  35. ↑ Posner MI, Cohen YP (1984). "Components of visual orienting". In Bouma H, Bouwhuis D (eds.). Attention and performance X. London: Erlbaum. pp. 531–566.
  36. ↑ Hodgson TL, Muller HJ (1999). "Attentional Orienting in Two-dimensional Space". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 52 (3): 615–648. doi:10.1080/027249899390990.
  37. ↑ Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J.B. Long & A.D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  38. ↑ Rosen AC, Rao SM, Caffarra P, Scaglioni A, Bobholz JA, Woodley SJ, et al. (March 1999). "Neural basis of endogenous and exogenous spatial orienting. A functional MRI study". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11 (2): 135–52. doi:10.1162/089892999563283. PMID   10198130. S2CID   13573473.
  39. 1 2 3 Posner MI, Petersen SE (1990). "The attention system of the human brain" (PDF). Annual Review of Neuroscience. 13 (1): 25–42. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325. PMID   2183676. S2CID   2995749. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-20. Retrieved 2015-01-10.
  40. 1 2 Li Z (January 2002). "A saliency map in primary visual cortex". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 6 (1): 9–16. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01817-9. PMID   11849610. S2CID   13411369.
  41. 1 2 Zhaoping L (2014). Understanding vision: theory, models, and data. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-956466-8.
  42. ↑ Zhaoping L (October 2016). "From the optic tectum to the primary visual cortex: migration through evolution of the saliency map for exogenous attentional guidance". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 40: 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2016.06.017. PMID   27420378. S2CID   206952820.
  43. ↑ Posner MI, Rothbart MK (November 1998). "Attention, self-regulation and consciousness". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 353 (1377): 1915–27. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0344. PMC   1692414 . PMID   9854264.
  44. ↑ Astle DE, Scerif G (March 2009). "Using developmental cognitive neuroscience to study behavioral and attentional control". Developmental Psychobiology. 51 (2): 107–18. doi:10.1002/dev.20350. PMID   18973175.
  45. ↑ Rueda MR, Rothbart MK, McCandliss BD, Saccomanno L, Posner MI (October 2005). "Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102 (41): 14931–6. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10214931R. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506897102 . PMC   1253585 . PMID   16192352.
  46. ↑ Dougherty KM, Johnston JM (October 1996). "Overlearning, fluency, and automaticity". The Behavior Analyst. 19 (2): 289–92. doi:10.1007/bf03393171. PMC   2733607 . PMID   22478265.
  47. ↑ Cartwright-Finch, Ula; Lavie, Nilli (2007-03-01). "The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness" . Cognition. 102 (3): 321–340. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.002. ISSN   0010-0277. PMID   16480973. S2CID   11075314.
  48. ↑ "Supplemental Material for The Mediating Role of Attention in the Association Between Math Anxiety and Math Performance: An Eye-Tracking Study". Journal of Educational Psychology edu0000759.supp. 2023. doi: 10.1037/edu0000759.supp . ISSN   0022-0663. S2CID   249802314.
  49. ↑ Knudsen EI (2007). "Fundamental components of attention". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 30 (1): 57–78. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094256. PMID   17417935. S2CID   9875095.
  50. ↑ Pattyn N, Neyt X, Henderickx D, Soetens E (January 2008). "Psychophysiological investigation of vigilance decrement: boredom or cognitive fatigue?". Physiology & Behavior. 93 (1–2): 369–78. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.09.016. PMID   17999934. S2CID   9861215.
  51. ↑ Zhaoping L (October 2016). "From the optic tectum to the primary visual cortex: migration through evolution of the saliency map for exogenous attentional guidance". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 40: 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2016.06.017. PMID   27420378. S2CID   206952820.
  52. ↑ Kaiser J, Lutzenberger W (December 2003). "Induced gamma-band activity and human brain function". The Neuroscientist. 9 (6): 475–84. doi:10.1177/1073858403259137. PMID   14678580. S2CID   23574844.
  53. ↑ Siegel M, Donner TH, Oostenveld R, Fries P, Engel AK (November 2008). "Neuronal synchronization along the dorsal visual pathway reflects the focus of spatial attention". Neuron. 60 (4): 709–19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.010 . hdl: 2066/71012 . PMID   19038226. S2CID   19010227.
  54. ↑ Gregoriou GG, Gotts SJ, Zhou H, Desimone R (May 2009). "High-frequency, long-range coupling between prefrontal and visual cortex during attention". Science. 324 (5931): 1207–10. Bibcode:2009Sci...324.1207G. doi:10.1126/science.1171402. PMC   2849291 . PMID   19478185.
  55. ↑ Baldauf D, Desimone R (April 2014). "Neural mechanisms of object-based attention". Science. 344 (6182): 424–7. Bibcode:2014Sci...344..424B. doi: 10.1126/science.1247003 . PMID   24763592. S2CID   34728448.
  56. ↑ Posner MI, Boies SJ (1971). "Components of attention". Psychological Review. 78 (5): 391–408. doi:10.1037/h0031333.
  57. ↑ Trautwein FM, Singer T, Kanske P (August 2016). "Stimulus-Driven Reorienting Impairs Executive Control of Attention: Evidence for a Common Bottleneck in Anterior Insula". Cerebral Cortex. 26 (11): 4136–4147. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw225. PMC   5066828 . PMID   27550866.
  58. ↑ Fan J, Gu X, Guise KG, Liu X, Fossella J, Wang H, Posner MI (July 2009). "Testing the behavioral interaction and integration of attentional networks". Brain and Cognition. 70 (2): 209–20. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.02.002. PMC   2674119 . PMID   19269079.
  59. ↑ Callejas A, Lupiáñez J, Tudela P (April 2004). "The three attentional networks: on their independence and interactions". Brain and Cognition. 54 (3): 225–7. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.012. PMID   15050779. S2CID   775862.
  60. ↑ Coull JT, Frith CD, Frackowiak RS, Grasby PM (November 1996). "A fronto-parietal network for rapid visual information processing: a PET study of sustained attention and working memory". Neuropsychologia. 34 (11): 1085–95. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(96)00029-2. PMID   8904746. S2CID   25430660.
  61. ↑ Marrocco RT, Witte EA, Davidson MC (April 1994). "Arousal systems". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 4 (2): 166–70. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(94)90067-1. PMID   7913640. S2CID   35709525.
  62. ↑ Fan J, McCandliss BD, Flombaum JI, Thomas KM, Posner MI (2001). "Comparing images of conflict in frontal cortex". Annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society. New York, NY. Archived from the original on 2015-01-10.
  63. ↑ Langner R, Eickhoff SB (July 2013). "Sustaining attention to simple tasks: a meta-analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention". Psychological Bulletin. 139 (4): 870–900. Bibcode:2013PsycB.139..870L. doi:10.1037/a0030694. PMC   3627747 . PMID   23163491.
  64. ↑ Robertson IH, O'Connell R (2010). "Vigilant attention.". In Nobre AC, Nobre K, Coull JT (eds.). Attention and Time. Oxford University Press. pp. 79–88. ISBN   978-0-19-956345-6.
  65. 1 2 Matlin MW (2013). Cognition (Textbook) (8th ed.). Wiley. ISBN   978-1-118-14896-9.
  66. ↑ Spelke E, Hirst W, Neisser U (1976). "Skills of divided attention" (PDF). Cognition. 4 (3): 215–230. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(76)90018-4. S2CID   19019411.
  67. ↑ Brown ID (October 1965). "Effect of a car radio on driving in traffic". Ergonomics. 8 (4): 475–9. doi:10.1080/00140136508930828. PMID   5854152.
  68. ↑ Brown ID, Tickner AH, Simmonds DC (October 1969). "Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 53 (5): 419–24. doi:10.1037/h0028103. PMID   5366314.
  69. ↑ Strayer DL, Drews FA (2007). "Multitasking in the automobile". In Kramer AF, Wiegmann DA, Kirlik A (eds.). Attention: From Theory to Practice . New York: Oxford University Press. pp.  121–33. ISBN   978-0-19-530572-2.
  70. ↑ Salvucci DD, Taatgen NA (January 2008). "Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking". Psychological Review. 115 (1): 101–30. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.140.3655 . doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.1.101. PMID   18211187. S2CID   14785507.
  71. ↑ Collet C, Clarion A, Morel M, Chapon A, Petit C (November 2009). "Physiological and behavioural changes associated to the management of secondary tasks while driving". Applied Ergonomics. 40 (6): 1041–6. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.01.007. PMID   19249012.
  72. ↑ Chabris CF, Simons DJ (2010). The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us . New York: Crown.
  73. ↑ Folk CL (2010). "Attention: Divided". In Goldstein EB (ed.). Encyclopedia of Perception . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp.  84–7. ISBN   978-1-4129-4081-8.
  74. ↑ Strayer DL, Cooper JM, Turrill J, Coleman J, Medeiros-Ward N, Biondi F (June 2013). "Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile" (PDF) (Research Report). AAA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-28. Retrieved 2013-11-06.
  75. ↑ Kahneman D (1973). Attention and Effort (PDF). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  76. 1 2 3 Sternberg RJ, Sternberg K (2012). Cognitive Psychology (Textbook). Cengage Learning. ISBN   978-1-133-31391-5.
  77. ↑ Wahn B, König P (2017). "Is Attentional Resource Allocation Across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent?". Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 13 (1): 83–96. doi:10.5709/acp-0209-2. PMC   5405449 . PMID   28450975.
  78. ↑ Correa-Chávez, Maricela; Roberts, Amy L.D.; Pérez, Margarita Martínez (2011). "Cultural Patterns in Children's Learning Through Keen Observation and participation in their communities". Advances in Child Development and Behavior. Vol. 40. Elsevier. pp. 209–241. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-386491-8.00006-2. ISBN   978-0-12-386491-8. ISSN   0065-2407. PMID   21887963.
  79. ↑ Morelli GA, Rogoff B, Angelillo C (2003). "Cultural variation in young children's access to work or involvement in specialized child-focused activities" (PDF). International Journal of Behavioral Development. 27 (3): 264–74. doi:10.1080/01650250244000335. S2CID   145563973.
  80. 1 2 Silva KG, Correa-Chávez M, Rogoff B (2010). "Mexican-heritage children's attention and learning from interactions directed to others". Child Development. 81 (3): 898–912. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01441.x. PMID   20573112.
  81. ↑ Klein JT, Shepherd SV, Platt ML (November 2009). "Social attention and the brain". Current Biology. 19 (20): R958–62. Bibcode:2009CBio...19.R958K. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.08.010. PMC   3387539 . PMID   19889376.
  82. ↑ Humphreys GW, Sui J (2016). "Attentional control and the self: The Self-Attention Network (SAN)". Cognitive Neuroscience. 7 (1–4): 5–17. doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1044427. PMID   25945926. S2CID   52867757.
  83. 1 2 Kuang S (2016). "Two Polarities of Attention in Social Contexts: From Attending-to-Others to Attending-to-Self". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 63. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00063 . PMC   4734343 . PMID   26869965.
  84. ↑ Jonides J (1983). "Further towards a model of the mind's eye's movement" (PDF). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 21 (4): 247–50. doi: 10.3758/bf03334699 .
  85. ↑ Homskaya ED (2001). Alexander Romanovich Luria, A Scientific Biography. Plenum Series in Russian Neuropsychology. Translated by Krotova D. Plenum Press. pp. 70–71. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1207-3. ISBN   978-1-4613-5441-3.
  86. ↑ Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA (1989). Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: theory and practice . New York: Guilford Press. ISBN   978-0-89862-738-1.
  87. ↑ Deutsch JA, Deutsch D (January 1963). "Some theoretical considerations". Psychological Review. 70 (1): 80–90. doi:10.1037/h0039515. PMID   14027390.
  88. ↑ Theeuwes J, Kramer AF, Belopolsky AV (August 2004). "Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 11 (4): 697–702. doi: 10.3758/BF03196622 . PMID   15581120.
  89. 1 2 Eriksen CW, Hoffman JE (1972). "Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays". Perception & Psychophysics. 12 (2B): 201–4. doi: 10.3758/BF03212870 .
  90. ↑ Eriksen CW, St James JD (October 1986). "Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: a zoom lens model". Perception & Psychophysics. 40 (4): 225–40. doi: 10.3758/BF03211502 . PMID   3786090.
  91. ↑ Castiello U, Umiltà C (April 1990). "Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing". Acta Psychologica. 73 (3): 195–209. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90022-8. hdl: 11577/2470912 . PMID   2353586.
  92. ↑ Eriksen CW, Hoffman JE (1973). "The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays". Perception & Psychophysics. 14 (1): 155–160. doi: 10.3758/BF03198630 .
  93. ↑ Raftopoulos A (2007). "Visual Processing and Attention". Cognition and Perception. Oxford University Press.
  94. ↑ Lavie, Nilli; Tsal, Yehoshua (1994). "Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention". Perception and Psychophysics. 56 (2): 183–197. doi: 10.3758/bf03213897 . PMID   7971119.
  95. ↑ Lavie, Nilli (1995). "Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 21 (3): 451–468. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.468.2521 . doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.451. PMID   7790827. S2CID   15853582. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-02-09. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
  96. ↑ Theeuwes, Jan; Kramer, Arthur F.; Belopolsky, Artem V. (2004). "Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 11 (4): 697–702. doi: 10.3758/BF03196622 . ISSN   1069-9384. PMID   15581120.
  97. ↑ Correa-Chavez M, Barbara R (2009). "Cultural variation in children's attention and learning". Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.