Not So Special After All

Previous research has suggested that a person’s own name or emotionally charged stimuli automatically ‘‘grab’’ attention, potentially challenging limited-capacity theories of perceptual processing. In this study, subjects were shown two digits surrounding a word and asked to make a speeded judgment about whether the parity of the two digits matched. When the subject’s own name was presented on a few scattered trials, responses were markedly slowed (replicating a previous study). However, in a subsequent block of trials in which half the words were the subject’s name, the slowing did not occur. The same slowing occurred (but even more fleetingly) when an emotionally charged word was presented between the digits. When the name was embedded among multiple distractor words, it ceased to slow reaction times. The results suggest that perceptual analysis of high-priority stimuli is subject to the usual capacity limitations of other stimuli, but when enough capacity is available for a high-priority stimulus to be perceived, a transient surprise reaction may interrupt ongoing processing. People often seem to notice when their names are spoken in a conversation they were not consciously attending to, as if the names ‘‘jump out. ’’ Similarly, people sometimes report noticing emotionally charged words in unattended conversations or print. However, research on attention to such high-priority stimuli presents a confusing picture. In the present study, we attempted to shed more light on the topic using an experimental design in which high-priority stimuli occasionally appeared as distractors while subjects performed a perceptual-cognitive task. EARLY FINDINGS AND CONFLICTING RESULTS The commonplace observation that one’s own name may attract attention was first confirmed by Moray (1959; see also Wood & Cowan, 1995). Subjects shadowed spoken messages played in one ear, ignoring the message played in the other ear. When the unattended input consisted of ordinary words, subjects neither noticed nor recognized the words. However, about one third of the listeners noticed when their own names were presented to the unattended ear and commented on this. Moray’s result is cited in most current textbook discussions of attention (e.g., Reisberg, 2001; Solso, 2000), where it is usually viewed as evidence for late-selection theory. According to this interpretation, all perceivable stimuli, whether attended or not, are analyzed to a semantic level. Monitoring for high-priority stimuli is thought not to require limited-capacity processing resources. In a visual analogue to Moray’s (1959) study, Wolford and Morrison (1980) presented two digits flanking a word and had subjects indicate whether the digits had the same parity (odd vs. even). When the word was the subject’s last name, responses were substantially slowed. The authors concluded that names frequently attracted attention, impairing performance on the digit task. However, Bundesen, Kyllingsbaek, Houmann, and Jensen (1997) found a startlingly different result. Brief displays of two red and two white names were presented (a random 5% of these being the subject’s own first name). The subject’s task was to report the red items. When the subject’s name was one of the (white) distractors, this did not impair performance. Similarly, in recent visual search studies involving displays of 2 to 12 words, we found no evidence that the subject’s name is an especially potent distractor (Harris, Pashler, & Coburn, in press). However, like Bundesen et al., we found that subjects were quicker to detect their own names than to detect other words, presumably because of greater practice identifying their own names. Given this evidence that casts doubt on whether one’s own name attracts attention, we began the present study by asking whether the Wolford and Morrison (1980) phenomenon could be replicated. Finding that it could, we explored its theoretical significance by asking whether the effect persists with repeated exposures of the word, and determining how the effect may be modulated when the visual processing load is varied.