Cited by 2,102Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load

Lavie, Nilli·2005·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

The ability to remain focused on goal-relevant stimuli in the presence of potentially interfering distractors is crucial for any coherent cognitive function. However, simply instructing people to ignore goal-irrelevant stimuli is not sufficient for preventing their processing. Recent research reveals that distractor processing depends critically on the level and type of load involved in the processing of goal-relevant information. Whereas high perceptual load can eliminate distractor processing, high load on "frontal" cognitive control processes increases distractor processing. These findings provide a resolution to the long-standing early and late selection debate within a load theory of attention that accommodates behavioural and neuroimaging data within a framework that integrates attention research with executive function.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Load theory proposes that attention selection operates at each level of processing and depends on task demands at each level.

    “One recent influential view is load theory (Lavie, 2005(Lavie, , 2010)), which proposes that attention selection operates at each level of processing (which is capacity-limited) and depends on task demands at each level.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lavie, N.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
75-82
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133780491
Cited by
2,102
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 131 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 104 · 2015: 122 · 2014: 101 · 2013: 112 · 2012: 111
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
selective attention, distractor processing, perceptual load, cognitive control, executive function, interference
MeSH terms
Attention, Field Dependence-Independence, Frontal Lobe, Goals, Humans, Mental Processes, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Perceptual Masking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review