determination of focused versus divided attention on

8/14/2019 Determination of Focused Versus Divided Attention On

1/19

Determination of Focused Versus

Divided Attention on Word Recall and

Its Relation to Broadbents FilterTheory Using Mixed Modalities to

Garner Attention

Alan Cummins Student No: 1165236 Course: PSY283 Lecturer: Dr. Garry Prentice


2/19

2

Laboratories 1 PSY283 Alan Cummins 1165236 2 of 19

Abstract

This experiment seeks to determine the effect of focused versus divided attention on

the recall of words. Words are presented in auditory or auditory and visual form and

randomly played in either left or right ear. Twenty-two participants took part and a control

group was sued to determine how divided attention differs from focused attention. The

experimental group was then compared inter and intra-group, in a between subjects group

design, to highlight how the theories of selective attention, predominantly Broadbents Filter

attenuation model are applicable to attention. The dependent variable is the number of words

recalled in each ear. The independent variables are that of the differing randomly chosen

groups who were provided with words in a fashion in comparison with those who were

provided with the words in a mixture of visual and auditory stimuli. It was found that mixed

modality stimuli aid in the focused attention and recall of words over and above a single

stimulus, such as audio in this experiment. Broadbents theory of a filter attenuation model

was found to be lacking in relation to the experimental results found however. Even with

focused attention on a single ear, information from the unattended ear was still processed at

some level.


3/19

3


Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4

Method....................................................................................................................................... 6

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 13

References ............................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A Word List ......................................................................................................... 17

Appendix B Complete SPSS Anaylsis Output ..................................................................... 18


4/19

4


Introduction

Attention can be split into study of two different but related areas of experimentation.

Focused attention is studied by presented participants with two or more stimuli and

instructing them to respond to only one as in Cherry (1953) whereas divided attention is

studied by presenting two or more stimuli and requesting participants to attend to all stimuli,

such as detailed by Norman and Shallice (1986). However Hampson (1989) has suggested

that factors such as presenting stimuli in different modalities that can aid focused attention

also can aid selective attention as well. There are several theories of selective attention which

are based on trying to shadow information in a selective manner. The information processed

at some point must hit a bottleneck or filter at which point it is no longer shadowed and

attention is given fully the requested stimuli. The main theories are that of Broadbents Filter

model (1958), Triesmans Attenuator model (1964) and the Pertinence model of Deutsch and

Deutsch (1963) which each moving this filter further back in processing. This experiment

focuses on Broadbents Filter theory which proposes that the bottleneck occurs very early in

processing and is based on the physical properties of the stimuli e.g. speakers tone, words,

volume, brightness, intensity and novelty. This experiment will test Broadbents assertion that

no processing will be given to an unattended ear by trying to force the user to give full

attention to the ear in which visual and auditory words are presented. The experiment uses

cross-modal stimuli to determine how this concept of a filter of attention can be extended out

to cover attention receptors in relation to each other as opposed to Broadbents original

experiment which focused on the aural modality only. Driver and Spence (1998) have already

carried out work on determining how different modalities can positively and negatively affect

attention.

The hypotheses under investigation in relation to accurate word recall and the effect

of focused versus divided attention for these experiments are stated as such:


5/19

5


Alternate Hypothesis: There will be a significant difference in the number of correctly

recalled words from the right ear when comparing the two groups, the audio-visual group and

the audio-only group. Specifically there will be a positive increase in the number of words

correctly recalled in the right ear of the audio-visual group as they have been given focused

attention as compared to the divided attention given by the audio-only group.

Alternate hypothesis: There will be a significant positive difference in the number of correctly

recalled words in the right ear as compared to the left ear in the audio-visual group.

Furthermore, in focusing on the experimental group it can be stated in support of Broadbents

Filter Attenuation Theory that there is a zero correct recall of words from the left ear as

compared to the right ear.

In relation to divided attention a further hypothesis is:

Alternate Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference between the number of correctly

recalled words for the right and left ear for the control group of audio-only presentation. That

is attention should be evenly split between both ears.


6/19

6


Method

Materials

The Materials used for the experiment were as follows:

Windows Computer: Used to display and play each word, one per participant.

PowerPoint Software: To display and playback audio.

Recall Sheets: One for each participant.

Instruction-set: One for each participant.

Pens: Provided for marking on the Recall sheets.

Chairs: Each participant had a chair made available to them.

Software lab: In which each of the groups could perform the experiment.

Stop-watch: To time both the period of time words were displayed and the recall

period allowed.

Headphones: One set for each participant.

Poker chips: For group allocation.

Participants

The Total Sample Size was twenty-two Psychology students from Dublin Business

School (n=22). There were two groups corresponding to the audio and visual focused

attention and the audio only divided attention stimuli. The audio and visual group comprised

of 12 students. The audio only group comprised 10 students. The participants for each group


7/19

7


were randomly chosen by each drawing from a bag of poker chips which corresponded to one

of the two possible groups.

Design

The design method used for this experiment was a Between Subject Groups design.

This consisted of two groups, containing randomly assigned participants, taking part in an

attention experiment. The control group consisted of those that would only hear words in

either ear while the experimental group consisted of those who would randomly hear words in

both ears but who would also see words displayed on screen while they were being played in

their right ear. The dependent variable was that of the number of words recalled in each ear.

The independent variable was that of the groups who could hear the provided words versus

those that could both randomly hear and see words.

Procedure

1. Participants were randomly allocated to the two required groups by choosing from

concealed poker chips in a bag.

2. Each group was told to await their allotted time to carry out the experiment.

3. The control group, which would only hear words randomly played in their left and

right ear, went first. The experimental group carried out the experiment afterwards.

4. Each participant was instructed to seat themselves in front of individual computers.

5. Each participant was given a recall sheet and instructed not to write anything on these

sheets or any other paper until instructed to do so.

6. Each participant was provided with a pen as required.

7. Each participant was given a headphone set and requested to check that they could

hear audio.

8. The instructions were then read aloud for the participants as follows: Pay attention to

the words presented in audio and visual format, depending on the group you have

been randomly assigned to, as you will be asked to recall words at the end. There


8/19

8


shall be a 3 second pause between words and once all words have been presented you

will be given 2 minutes to recall as many words as possible. The words will be

displayed on the screen in white on a black background. There are thirty words in

total with fifteen presented in random fashion to each ear.

9. Once all the words had been presented the participants were indicated to begin recall

of the words and enter them on to the recall sheet.

10.After two minutes the participants were asked to stop writing and the recall sheets

were collected.

11.The participants were thanked for their participation and briefly told that the

experiment was undertaken to test attention.

12.They were instructed to not discuss the experiment, procedures and instructions with

any of the participants from the other group.

13.Once all groups had carried out the experiment, all recall sheets were collated and the

results entered into SPSS.


9/19

9


Results

The following are the results and analysis of such.

Figure 3 reports the mean number of words correctly recalled from both right and left

ear as split by the audio-only versus audio and visual word presentation groups.

Comparing the average number of correctly recalled words in the right ear for the

audio and visual experimental group as against the right ear in the audio-only control group:

AVG Right Ear Mean Recall = 2.58, std Dev = 1.165

AG Right Ear Mean Recall = 1.50, std Dev = 1.269

This indicates that there was a large difference between the two groups with regard to correct

recall of words from the right ear. It should be noted that there is a higher standard deviation

for the AG indicating a greater spread of recall results.

Comparing the average number of correctly recalled words in the left ear for the

audio and visual experimental group as against the left ear in the audio-only control group:

AVG Left Ear Mean Recall = 2.5, std Dev = 1.624

AG Left Ear Mean Recall = 2.6, std Dev = 1.713

This indicates that there was little difference between the two groups with regard to correct

recall of words from the left ear.

Comparing the average number of correctly recalled words in the left and right ear of

the audio-only group the following is noted:

AG Left Ear Mean Recall = 2.6, std. Dev = 1.713

AG Right Ear Mean Recall =1.5, std. Dev 1.269


10/19

10


This is an anomaly as it is expected that both ears would be attended to equally.

Comparing the number of correctly recalled words in the right ear to the left ear for

the audio-visual group it was found:

AVG Right Ear Mean Recall = 2.58, std. Dev = 1.165

AVG Left Ear Mean Recall = 2.5, std. Dev = 1.624

This appears to suggest that there was little difference in the recall of words that were given

extra emphasis, namely those in the right ear, which had a visual cue provided as well as a

audio cue, as compared to those in the left ear.

FIGURE 1 - BAR GRAPH OF RECALL OF WORDS ACCORDING TO RIGHT AND LEFT EARS FOR AUDIO AND

VISUAL FOCUSED ATTENTION

Figure 1 indicates that there were a fairly even number of correctly recalled words for

the audio-visual group across both ears. However, it should be noted that participants 10 and

11 could not recall any words from their left ear which indicates that they paid full and

undivided attention to their right ear and right visuals.

0 2 4 6

123456789

101112

No. Words Recalled

ParticipantNo.

Recall of Words According to Right

and Left Ears for Audio and Visual

Focused Attention Group

Words Recalled Left Ear

Words Recalled Right Ear


11/19

11


FIGURE 2 - RECALL OF WORDS ACCORDING TO RIGHT AND LEFT EARS FOR THE AUDIO ONLY DIVIDED

ATTENTION GROUP

Figure 2 indicates that there were in general a higher number of words recalled from

the left ear as opposed to the right ear for the audio-only control group. It was expected that

there would be a parity of correctly recalled words in each ear but the left ear seems to be

have given a greater emphasis.

A Paired Sample t-test was carried out as in Figure 5 reporting:

t(11) = 0.127, P > 0.05, 2-tailed

This is a comparison of the right and left ears for correct word recall for the experimental

group of audio and visual presentation of words.

A one-tailed directional result is required:

t(11) = 0.127, P > 0.05, 1-tailed with significance of 0.4505

Both results indicate that there is no significant difference between left and right ears for word

recall for the audio-visual group.

0 2 4 6 8

123456789

10

No. Words Recalled

ParticipantNo.

Recall of Words According to Right and

Left Ears for the Audio Only Divided

Attention Group

Words Recalled Left Ear

Words Recalled Right Ear


12/19

12


Similarly a comparison was made of the right and left ears for correct word recall for the

control group of audio-only presentation of words, which indicated there was no significant

difference.

t(9) = -2.283, P > 0.05, 2-tailed

A one-sample t-test was carried out as in Figure 7 reporting:

t(11) = 7.685, P < 0.01, 1-tailed

This is a comparison of recalled words from the right ear in the control group as compared to

the right ear in the experimental group. This indicates that there is a significant difference.


13/19

13


Discussion

It was found that in relation to the alternate hypothesis that there is a significant

positive difference between word recall in the right ear in the audio-visual group as compared

to the audio group experimental evidence leads us to accept this hypothesis. However in

relation to the hypothesis that there should be a significant positive difference in the right ear

versus the left ear for the audio-visual group it was found that we cannot reject the null

hypothesis. That is counter to what Broadbent suggests, that essentially no words should be

attended to in the unattended ear. It suggests a model of attention closer to that of Treismans

Attenuator model where all messages are attended to but given less processing. In order to

clarify and validate this statement the experiment would need modification and enhancement

to determine the level of processing given to each ear. As the experiment stands the task of

word recall makes it difficult to determine if the right ear picked up more information than the

left ear. All that can be currently said is that information was picked up in both focused and

unfocused ear. The experimental findings in relation to the control group and the final

hypothesis that there should be no significant difference between the number of correctly

recalled words in the left and right ear when pure divided attention is given can be accepted.

This lends itself to the Pertinence model where all signals are processed and passed onwards.

The experiment indicates that there is a difference in the level of recall when mixed

modality stimuli are used and further investigation should be carried out to extend this to

more comprehensive and complex tasks both in terms on complexity of audio words heard

and that of visual tasks. Also it may be of interest to switch the tasks to be carried out. There

may be benefit in determining if visual scanning and recall of a scene can be aided or

hampered by the dual task of listening to words or music.

The experiment is flawed in terms of the choice of words used. Looking at Appendix

A Word List there is a mixture of simple and complex words in use. Specifically the words


14/19

14


vary in the number of syllables in each. It is not clear if the complexity of the words had an

effect on the experiment results if assuming simpler words are easier to attend and recall to.

The experiment could be modified in two ways, namely reduce all words to one syllable

words or vary the complexity of words greatly to see if either has an effect.

The experiment relies on the participant remaining focused on the audio and the

visual components. There was no experiment measure setup to measure and quantify this

focused attention. The audio across different participants could have varied giving varying

results in recall. Similarly the attention paid to the screen by each participant could have

varied greatly. This could be alleviated by having all participants listen to a fixed volume

source of auditory information. Calibration of the computer system and headphones in use

would be required. Attention on the screen could be measured by means of eye-tracking or

gaze detection software and taken into consideration of the measure of attention paid.

Focused attention on the screen could also be improved by placing the participant into an

enclosed darkened space from which they could only see the screen and no other distractions.

The sound quality of the word samples played was poor and may have had an effect

on the accurate recall of words also. Ambient noise and visual distraction was not consistent

across experiments for each group. To counter-act this further experimentation should be

carried out to reign in any deviation from a standard experience for all participants.

As the participants were all psychology students they were aware of the goal of the

experiment and may have been biased to pay more attention to the unattended ear than

normal. The experiment should be carried out with a random sample from the general

population to see if results differ.

The modalities in use could be increased to include touch, taste, smell to determine if

and how attention can be focused or divided dependent on the stimuli in use. The visual

stimulus could also be increased to not only incorporate words but images which are related

and unrelated to the words presented to investigate if the results obtained would significantly


15/19

15


differ.


16/19

16


References

Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon.

Cherry, E.C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975-979.

Deutsch, J.A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations.

Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.

Driver, J., & Spence, C. (1998). Attention and the crossmodal construction of space. Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 254-262.

Hampson, P.J. (1989). Aspects of attention and cognitive science. The Irish Journal of

Psychology, 10, 261-275.

Norman, D.A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of

behavior. In R.J. Davidson, G.E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), The design of

everyday things. New York: Doubleday.

Treisman, A.M. (1964). Verbal cues, language, and meaning in selective attention.American

Journal of Psychology, 77, 206-219.


17/19

17


Appendix A Word List

The following are the list of words that were presented in audio form and in the order they

were played. Any word that has a bracketed visual tag was presented in visual form as well

(dependent on the participant group).

1. Override 2. Worker

3. Substitute (Visual) 4. Local (Visual)

5. Domestic (Visual) 6. Bath

7. Extra (Visual) 8. Smile

9. Premise 10.Window

11.Completion (Visual) 12.Rating (Visual)

13.Mileage 14.Literal

15.Logo 16.Minority (Visual)

17.Source (Visual) 18.Donation

19.Point (Visual) 20.Urgency (Visual)

21.Cluster (Visual) 22.Sequel

23.International (Visual) 24.Opinion

25.Gasoline (Visual) 26.Construction

27.Democracy 28.Person

29.Copper (Visual) 30.Association (Visual)


18/19

18


Appendix B Complete SPSS Anaylsis Output

group Mean N Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

audio & visual Pair 1 Words recalledfrom right ear 2.58 12 1.165 .336

Words recalledfrom left ear 2.50 12 1.624 .469

audio only Pair 1 Words recalledfrom right ear 1.50 10 1.269 .401

Words recalledfrom left ear 2.60 10 1.713 .542

FIGURE 3 - PAIRED SAMPLE STATISTICS

group N Correlation Sig.

audio & visual Pair 1 Words recalled fromright ear & Wordsrecalled from left ear

12 -.313 .323

audio only Pair 1 Words recalled fromright ear & Wordsrecalled from left ear

10 .511 .131

FIGURE 4 - PAIRED SAMPLE CORRELATION

group t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Audio & visual Pair 1

Words recalled fromright ear Wordsrecalled from left ear .127 11

.901

Audio only Pair 1

Words recalled fromright ear Wordsrecalled from left ear -2.283 9 .048

FIGURE 5 - PAIRED SAMPLES TEST

group N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

audio & visual Words recalledfrom right ear 12 2.58 1.165 .336

audio only Words recalledfrom right ear 10 1.50 1.269 .401

FIGURE 6 - ONE SAMPLE STATISTICS


19/19

19


Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

Difference95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Words recalledfrom right ear 7.685 11 .000 2.583 1.84 3.32

FIGURE 7 - ONE-SAMPLE TEST

Words recalledfrom right ear

Wordsrecalled from

left ear

group audio & visual 1 2 2

2 2 13 3 3

4 3 3

5 4 2

6 3 4

7 2 4

8 1 5

9 1 2

10 2 0

11 5 0

12 3 4Total N 12 12

audio only 1 2 6

2 3 2

3 2 2

4 1 4

5 1 3

6 0 1

7 4 4

8 0 0

9 1 2

10 1 2

Total N 10 10

Total N 22 22

FIGURE 8 - CASE SUMMARIES

determination of focused versus divided attention on

Documents