 The findings of O’Connor et al. create fewer problems for some recent theories in which elements of the late selection view are retained. Nilli Lavie and her collaborators have proposed one such theory, which attempts to combine some aspects of the late selection theory with some aspects of its early selectionist rival. According to Lavie’s ‘load theory’, attention does correspond to a capacity bottleneck—much as Broadbent thought—but the differing demands of the task that is at hand lead to differences as to where that bottleneck restricts the processing of a stimulus: in conditions where the processing demands of perception are high the available resources will soon be exhausted, and the bottleneck will operate at an early stage, with the result that unattended stimuli will be processed rather little; in conditions where the processing load of perception is lower the bottleneck will operate at a later stage, with the result that unattended stimuli will be processed rather more (Lavie &amp; Tsal, 1994, Lavie et al. 2004). This load theory predicts that peripheral stimuli will elicit less neural activation, and will be less distracting, when the subject’s task is a perceptually demanding one. These predictions have been borne out by behavioural and neurological observations (Lavie, 2005).  The theory’s theoretical apparatus has also provided a useful framework for the philosophical treatment of attention’s relationship to consciousness (Hine, 2010). Many psychologists nonetheless continue to be wary of Lavie’s rehabilitation of elements from the Broadbentian framework.