Lag-1 sparing in the attentional blink: benefits and costs of integrating two events into a single episode

When people monitor a visual stream of rapidly presented stimuli for two targets (T1 and T2), they often miss T2 if it falls into a time window of about half a second after T1 onset-the attentional blink. However, if T2 immediately follows T1, performance is often reported being as good as that at long lags-the so-called Lag-1 sparing effect. Two experiments investigated the mechanisms underlying this effect. Experiment 1 showed that, at Lag 1, requiring subjects to correctly report both identity and temporal order of targets produces relatively good performance on T2 but relatively bad performance on T1. Experiment 2 confirmed that subjects often confuse target order at short lags, especially if the two targets are equally easy to discriminate. Results suggest that, if two targets appear in close succession, they compete for attentional resources. If the two competitors are of unequal strength the stronger one is more likely to win and be reported at the expense of the other. If the two are equally strong, however, they will often be integrated into the same attentional episode and thus get both access to attentional resources. But this comes with a cost, as it eliminates information about the targets' temporal order.

The benefits of providing benefit information in a patient information leaflet

Objective: To examine the effects of providing two different types of written information about medicine benefits in a patient information leaflet (PIL). Setting: Participants were 358 adult volunteers from the general population recruited from a London railway station and central Reading. Method: The study used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were given a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication. They then read an information leaflet about the medicine that contained neither, one, or both benefit statements, and finally completed a number of Likert rating scales. Outcome measures included perceived satisfaction and helpfulness of the information, effectiveness and appropriateness of the medicine, benefit and risk to health, and intention to comply. Key findings: Both types of benefit information led to significantly higher ratings on all of the measures taken. Conclusions: Provision of a relatively short ‘benefit’ statement can significantly improve people’s judgements and intention to take a medicine. The findings are important and timely as the European Union is currently considering reviewing their regulations to allow for the inclusion of limited non-promotional benefit information in PILs.