Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Culture and urbanisation 2: attention (Linnell et al., 2013: E1…
Culture and urbanisation 2: attention
ART; attention restoration theory: nature uses bottom-up allowing top-down attention to replenish (Kaplan, 1995)
Berman et al., 2008: found walking in nature (and even pictures of nature) can improve directed attention abilities
Kaplan 2008: found the urban environment "depletes executive/cognitive resources whereas a walk in the park restores them and improves executive control.
Linnell et al., 2013: E1
seperation flanker paradigm, speeded 2-AFC task to signal one of two targets
measure distractor interefancs as function of TD seperation
TH vs YH: found TH can focus even on easy tasks a way UH cannot (not due to translocation trauma
TH vs UHvs B speeded 2 AFC to signal if head was pointing left or right to address stimulus novelty
Aston Jones et al., 1999: urbanisation affects attentional engagement
conditions that prioritise sustained interaction with task relevant objects (eg a tool) increase attentional engagement (TH)
conditions that prioritise exploration and the search for potential dangers or new opportunities decrease attentional engagement (UH)
if urbanisation does not decrease cognitive resources but only decreases engagement it should be possible to improve attentional selection in urbanised people by making the stimuli/task more engaging
TH vs UH and cognitive/WM load
according to the cognitive load account of urbanisation (BErman et al., 2008) increasing cognitive load should make TH more like UH on task of local selection
Caparos and Linnell 2010, Linnell and Caparos 2011: cognitive load defocuses spatial attention on a task of local selection
increasing cognitive load should make TH as unfocused as UH
Linnell et al., 2013: E2
When the Himba given numbers to remember on top of x task the cognitive load made the TH defocused and indistinguishable from UH. These findings are consistent with the idea that urbanisation exerts a load on cognitive resources
Linnell et al., 2013: E4
TH vs UH vs B with upright coloured head stimuli
speeded 2-AFC to signal if inverted head is black or white
UH and B can be as focused as TH when a task is attentionally engaging (upright faces)
familiarity confound
UH are just as defocused as B despite mostly never having seen a computer before
are Th less familiar with stimuli and does this mean that stimulus are effectively higher in perceptual load for TH producing the greater spatial focus
testing potential perceptual load account
Maylor and Lavie 1998
inside and outside circle, target on inside circle, old vs young pp
manipulation of perceptual load: varying set size
found
small set size: effect of incompatible distractor much greater for old
large set size: distractor effect decreased with less perceptual load for old for old suggesting older have smaller perceptual load capacity, reach their limit faster, and therefore attend better quicker
De Fockert et al., 2011: If TH and UH differ in subjective perceptual load then varying objective perceptual load should affect TH and UH differently however this is not the case so the do not differ in subjective perceptual load
effects of degree of urbanisation
Lederbogen 2011
degree of urban exposure in German pp affects recruitment of various brain regions under social stress
degree of urban living linked to amygdala recruitment
degree of urban upbringing linked to ACC recruitment
Haddad et al., 2015
degree of urban exposure in German pp affects GM volume in various brain regions
degree of urban upbringing linked to GM volume in right DLPRC and in ACC for men
Conclusions
UH and B can perform like TH when stimulus/task is more engaging (Linnell and Caparos, 2013) which is compatible with the idea that non-urbanised people are more attentionally engaged on the task at hand
engagement could be mediated (via arousal/motivation etc) and could be affected by long-term (urban upbringing) and short-term (urban living) processes