Duration of attention: The perceptual deprivation effect

BRUCE T. LECKART,1 JOSEPH R. LEVINE, CHRISTINE GOSCINSKI, AND WILLIAM BRAYMANSAN DIEGO STATE COLLEGE

16

Attneave and Arnoult (1956). Fourdifferent interstimulus intervals (lSI), 2,16. 30, and 44 sec, were presented to eachS six times. Perceptual deprivation wasdefmed as darkness during the lSI. Adifferent random order of forms and adifferent random sequence of intervals wasused for each S. The durations of attentionwere automatically recorded.

RESULTSFor each S, four scores were calculated:

the mean duration of attention to stimulifollowing perceptual deprivation intervalsof 2, 16, 30, and 44 sec. These means arepresented in Fig. 1. An analysis ofvarianceindicated a significant difference in thedurations of attention as a function of theduration of the perceptual deprivationperiod (F: 7.14, df: 3/90, p < .01). Aninspection of Fig. 1 indicates that asperceptual deprivation increased from 2 to30 sec the duration of attention increased.However, increasing the deprivation periodfrom 30 to 44 sec produced no furtherincrease in the duration of attention, butactually a slight decrease.

15

111

13

on-0cauOJon

'"o.....'"w..........oe

~

o

'"o..... 120«IX::>o

direct relationship between the duration ofdeprivation and attention.

METHODThe 31 male and female college students

who served as Ss were tested in a 6 x 6 ftlightproof chamber. They sat at a tablefacing a 12 x 12 in. rear-projection screeninserted in one of the walls. The screen wasat eye level and about 2* ft from the S'sface. They were told the experiment was toinvestigate changes in the galvanic skinresponse while viewing geometric forms.Sham electrodes were attached to twofingers of the left hand, and the Ss weretold the leads were attached to a polygraphin the adjacent room. The Ss were told thattheir task was to attend to each of thegeometric forms until they were "finishedlooking at it." The automatically projectedforms were terminated by a button held inthe S's right hand. The 12 x 12 in. formswere projected by a Kodak Carousal 800projector. Neutral-density filters reducedthe intensity of the projection by 90%. Sswere shown 25 different 18-sided,randomly generated forms constructedaccording to Method I outlined by

College students viewed IS-sidedrandomly generated polygons. They weretold to attend to each form until they"finished looking at it." Before em:hstimulus presentation, 2, 16, 30, or 44 secof perceptual deprivation wasadministered. The results indicated thatthere lWS a direct relationshipbetween thedumtion of perceptual deprivation and thedumtion of attention. The results wereinterpreted in terms of the deprivationestablishing a need for stimulation that isSQtisjied by attending.

During the last 10 years there has been arenewed interest in attentional processes.One major body of research in this area hasbeen concerned with determinants of theduration of attention under conditions inwhich the task-demand characteristics ofthe situation are minimal (Leckart & Faw,1968). Generally, research has indicatedthat this dependent variable, the durationof attention, is a function of both stimulusand organismic variables (e.g., Berlyne,1958; Zamansky, 1956). Oneinterpretation of these fmdings suggeststhat the duration of attention reflects theorganism's need for stimulation and thestimulus's ability to satisfy the need.Accordingly. the long duration reflects arelatively high need for stimulation.

Another body of literature is concernedwith the effects of the independentvariables of sensory and perceptualdeprivation on behavior. These studies haveshown a dramatic increase in the S's searchfor. and attention to. stimuli as a functionof deprivation (Schultz, 1965). Oneinterpretation of these fmdings is thatdeprivation produces a need forstimulation. The present study wasdesigned to establish an empiricalrelationship between these two bodies ofresearch. which are apparentlyconceptually related through the conceptof need for stimulation, by determining theeffects of short-term perceptualdeprivation on the duration of attention. Itwas expected that depriving human Ss ofstimulation would increase their need forstimulation and therefore increasesubsequent duration of attention. It wasalso hypothesized that there would be a

DURATION OF PERCEPTUAL DEPRIVATIONFig. 1. Duration of attention

function of perceptual deprivation.as a 2 16 30

(seconds)

1111

Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, Vol. 7 (3) Copyright 1970, Psychonomic Joumals.Tnc., Austin, Texas 163

DISCUSSIONThe prediction that perceptual

deprivation increases duration of attentionis supported by comparing the results ofthe present experiment with similarprevious experiments utilizing the samematerials in which there was no perceptualdeprivation. The average duration ofattention in the present experiment was13.2 sec vs approximately 7 sec in theprevious experiments (e.g., Brown & Lucas,1966). Similarly, the results supported theprediction that as the duration of theperceptual deprivation period increases, theduration of attention increases. Thisfinding establishes an empirical relationshipbetween perceptual deprivation and theduration of attention; It further suggeststhat brief periods of perceptual deprivationestablish a need for stimulation that issatisfied by attending for longer periods oftime.2

The concept of maintaining an optimallevel of-stimulation or cortical arousal mayprovide a meaningful conceptual basis forfuture research in this area. According tothis position, when the organism's level ofcortical arousal is lowered by a reductionof stimulus input, he is required to attend

164

for longer durations (thereby obtainingmore stimulation) in order to raise the levelof arousal to the optimum. Obviously,future research should be directed atevaluating the possible interpretations aswell as further investigating the effectitself. Future research might also bedirected at the effects of short-termperceptual deprivation. A great deal isknown about the effects of long-termperceptual deprivation, but relatively littleis known about the consequences ofshort-term periods of perceptualdeprivation.

REFERENCESAITNEAVE, F., & ARNOULT, M. The

quantitative study of shape and patternperception. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53,452-457.

BERLYNE, D. The influence of complexity andnovelty in visual figures on orienting responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958,55, 289-296.

BROWN, L. T., & LUCAS, J. H. Supplementaryreport: Attentional effects of five physicalproperties of visual patterns. Perceptual &Motor Skills, 1966,23,343-346.

KIMMEL, H. D., BOICE, C., & LECKART, B. T.Paired comparison scaling of reaction potentialfrom simultaneous measurements of GSR andlooking time. Perception & Psychophysics,1969, 5, 294-296.

LECKART, B. T., & FAW, T. T. Looking time: Abibliography. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1968,27,91-95.

SCHULTZ, D. P. Sensory restriction effects onbehavior. New York: Academic Press, 1965.(P. 145)

ZAMANSKY, H. S. A technique for assessinghomosexual tendencies. Joumal of Personality,1956,24,436-448.

NOTES1. Address: Department of Psychology, San

Diego State College, San Diego, California 92115.2. Another possible interpretation of the

results considers the difference in illuminationbetween the stimulus presentation and theperceptual deprivation period. According to thisinterpretation, the Ss attend for longer durationsafter the longer perceptual deprivation periodsbecause their eyes are more dark adapted andthey must first adapt to the increase in lightintensity before they can begin scanning thescreen. However, the fact that Kimmel, Boice,and Leckart (1969) found an effect similar to thepresent one, when the level of illumination of theS's viewing screen was maintained between trials,suggests that the present finding does not dependupon differential dark adaptation.

(Accepted for publication June 30, 1969.)

Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, Vol. 7 (3)