The background for the research was based on several verifiable facts. Foremost, from the perspective of the attentional blink; it was clear that when persons observed a stream of visual stimulus targets, they usually failed to notice the second target (T2). This was evident when T2 was present immediately after the first T1. However, T2 was not usually missed if it was presented right after T1 or at lag 1. The associate factor of lag 1 is an attentional gate opening that is presumably processed by T1. Moreover, this attentional gate opening may be too slow and allows the slip of an early T2 before its closing. Consequently, the research question by Akyurek and Hommel (2005) was to investigate the reason as to why the attentional gate closes and avoids further processing of stimuli. The participants involved in the research were twenty students drawn from Leiden University. To this end, two comparative approaches were uses. First was the control approach based on the assumption that attentional gate closing is stimulated exogenously by the presentation of non targets. Second was integration approach that presumed attentional gate closing is influenced by endogenous control.
Consequently, the results produced indicated that the integrated approach exhibited target reversals and T2 performance were highly influenced by temporal length between T1 and T2. On the other hand, there was little impact between T1 and T2 arising from the presence or absence of an intervening non target.
Landau & Bentin (2008) equally conducted research on attention blink in their article entitled ‘Attentional and perceptual factors affecting the attentional blink for faces and objects.’ To this end, their research question was to investigate whether faces were immune from the attentional blink and to establish reasons for the immunity.
Evidently, the research involved student volunteers in watching 900 movies. The images in the movies