The effect of a non-informative cueing signal in a three-choice reaction-time task

Summary Many studies have shown that in a simple reaction-time (RT) task a non-informative leading cue decreases RT to a subsequent target presented in the same region as the cue. This facilitation lasts about 150 ms; it is then replaced by a sustained inhibition. Experiment 1 tests the hypothesis that the initial facilitation is due to motor, rather than perceptual, processes by using choice RT. Facilitation is greater and lasts longer in choice than in simple tasks, thus supporting the hypothesis. Experiment 2 shows that facilitation occurs even when the subject actively orients his or her attention away from the cue.     

Evidence from a response choice task reveals a selection bias in the attentional cueing paradigm

In a typical attentional cueing paradigm, irrelevant peripheral cues produce early facilitation (fast responses) followed by later inhibition (slow responses) to cued locations. Here we examine whether cues not only influence the speed with which responses are produced, but also impact or bias which location is ultimately selected as requiring a response. Specifically, can cues influence not only the speed with which we respond but also influence the behavior produced? To examine this question, a choice localization task was used in which no targets were presented, and subjects were asked to choose which effector (left hand, right hand) to use in response to a centrally presented tone. Thus, following either a left or right peripheral cue, and then a central tone, subjects were free to respond with either their left or right hand. Early facilitation and later inhibition with this choice procedure were found in both response times and the proportion of responses to the cued and uncued locations. These results suggest that there are processes which initially bias response selection toward cued locations and then subsequently bias response selection away from cued locations.     

Attention‐shift vs. response‐priming explanations for the spatial cueing effect in cross‐modal tasks

The task‐irrelevant spatial location of a cue stimulus affects the processing of a subsequent target. This “Posner effect” has been explained by an exogenous attention shift to the spatial location of the cue, improving perceptual processing of the target. We studied whether the left/right location of task‐irrelevant and uninformative tones produces cueing effects on the processing of visual targets. Tones were presented randomly from left or right. In the first condition, the subsequent visual target, requiring response either with the left or right hand, was presented peripherally to left or right. In the second condition, the target was a centrally presented left/right‐pointing arrow, indicating the response hand. In the third condition, the tone and the central arrow were presented simultaneously. Data were recorded on compatible (the tone location and the response hand were the same) and incompatible trials. Reaction times were longer on incompatible than on compatible trials. The results of the second and third conditions are difficult to explain with the attention‐shift model emphasizing improved perceptual processing in the cued location, as the central target did not require any location‐based processing. Consequently, as an alternative explanation they suggest response priming in the hand corresponding to the spatial location of the tone. Simultaneous lateralized readiness potential (LRP) recordings were consistent with the behavioral data, the tone cues eliciting on incompatible trials a fast preparation for the incorrect response and on compatible trials preparation for the correct response.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus “masking” IOR.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus "masking" IOR.     

Extrafoveal processing of objects in a naming task: Evidence from word probe experiments

In two experiments, we investigated the processing of extrafoveal objects in a double-object naming task. On most trials, participants named two objects; but on some trials, the objects were replaced shortly after trial onset by a written word probe, which participants had to name instead of the objects. In Experiment 1, the word was presented in the same location as the left object either 150 or 350 msec after trial onset and was either phonologically related or unrelated to that object name. Phonological facilitation was observed at the later but not at the earlier SOA. In Experiment 2, the word was either phonologically related or unrelated to the right object and was presented 150 msec after the speaker had begun to inspect that object. In contrast with Experiment 1, phonological facilitation was found at this early SOA, demonstrating that the speakers had begun to process the right object prior to fixation.     

On the role of eye movements and saccade preparation in generating auditory inhibition of return.

In three experiments, listeners were required to either localize or identify the second of two successive sounds. The first sound (the cue) and the second sound (the target) could originate from either the same or different locations, and the interval between the onsets of the two sounds (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, SOA) was varied. Sounds were presented out of visual range at 135 azimuth left or right. In Experiment 1, localization responses were made more quickly at 100 ms SOA when the target sounded from the same location as the cue (i.e., a facilitative effect), and at 700 ms SOA when the target and cue sounded from different locations (i.e., an inhibitory effect). In Experiments 2 and 3, listeners were required to monitor visual information presented directly in front of them at the same time as the auditory cue and target were presented behind them. These two experiments differed in that in order to perform the visual task accurately in Experiment 3, eye movements to visual stimuli were required. In both experiments, a transition from facilitation at a brief SOA to inhibition at a longer SOA was observed for the auditory task. Taken together these results suggest that location-based auditory IOR is not dependent on either eye movements or saccade programming to sound locations.     

Picture-name priming in the cerebral hemispheres: evidence for phonological access in the right hemisphere

This study investigated right hemisphere involvement in access to phonology, using a picture-naming priming paradigm where pictures and names of common objects printed in Japanese Kana were presented in succession to the same visual field or different visual fields with a stimulus onset asynchrony of 250 msec. A naming task was used for this purpose. The result showed that, when primes and targets were presented to the same visual field, facilitation for related pairs was observed in each hemisphere, with overall naming latencies being slower in the right hemisphere than in the left hemisphere. This result indicates that the prior access to phonology for a picture in the right hemisphere facilitates phonological activation of a word that names the picture in this hemisphere, suggesting that the right hemisphere is involved in access to phonology. On the other hand, when primes and targets were presented to different visual fields, there was no facilitation for related pairs with inhibition for unrelated pairs, irrespective of prime and target visual fields. It is suggested that this inhibition-dominant pattern of priming may occur due to homotopic inhibition processes proposed by N. D. Cook.     

Ear asymmetry in a dichotic detection task

Pairs of consonant-vowel (CV) syllables were presented dichotically to Ss who were instructed to monitor for the presence of a target CV which could occur in either ear. Ss responded by depressing a response button ; reaction time (RT) was also recorded. Right ear targets were detected 6.2% more frequently, on the average, than left ear targets and had an average RT 50 msec quicker than their left ear counterparts. These results demonstrate the existence of a right ear superiority in dichotic listening when a nonverbal motor response measure is used, supporting the contention that the ear asymmetry phenomenon is truly perceptual in nature and not merely due to the lateralization of verbal output. Two alternative explanations of the RT difference between left and right ear targets are offered. One attributes this difference to the time necessary for intercortical transfer of right hemisphere information, while the second holds that it is due to the longer times needed by the right hemisphere to process information projected to it.     

动态情景中颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中的作用

在动态的“线索-靶子”范式中引入隧道刺激, 以靶子与线索的非空间特征相同时的反应延迟测量返回抑制效应。实验1利用单向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的作用。实验2利用双向隧道创设客体的空间位置信息不明确的条件, 考察客体的颜色特征在返回抑制中的独立作用。实验3、4分别采用与实验1、2类似的方法, 在动态任务情景中考察客体的身份特征在返回抑制中的作用。结果显示, 线索呈现与靶子呈现的时间间隔较长时, 4个实验中均存在显著的返回抑制效应。这表明, 动态情景中, 客体的空间位置信息明确且可靠时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中都发挥着重要作用; 客体的空间位置信息不明确时, 颜色特征和身份特征在返回抑制中也都具有相对独立的作用。     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

Effects of informative peripheral cues on eye movements: Revisiting William James’ “derived attention”

Two experiments examined effects of peripheral information on the latency of saccadic eye movements. In Experiment 1, simple target stimuli were presented to the left or right visual field. Prior to each target, a pair of cue letters was presented for 40msec bilaterally. The relative location of the letters (W-S or S-W) was related to target location, but participants were not informed of this contingency. After a brief practice period, saccadic latencies were faster for targets at the likely location, as indicated by the letter pair. This derived peripheral cueing effect was related to participants' awareness of the relation between cue type and target location. Experiments 2A and 2B employed monocular viewing in order to compare performance across the nasal and temporal visual fields. The effect observed in Experiment 1 was confined to the nasal visual field. In a reflexive orienting condition, the effect of a unilateral letter cue was larger in the temporal visual field. It is concluded that the neurocognitive processes responsible for derived peripheral cueing are distinct from those involved in either reflexive or voluntary orienting.     

Involuntary attentional shifts due to orientation differences

We tested the ability of orientation differences to cause involuntary shifts of visual attention and found that these attentional shifts can occur in response to an orientation “pop-out” display. Texturelike cue stimuli consisting of discrete oriented bars, with either uniform orientation or containing a noninformative orthogonally oriented bar, were presented for a variable duration. Subsequent to or partially coincident with the cue stimulus was the target display of a localization or two-interval forced-choice task, followed by a mask display. Naive subjects consistently showed greater accuracy in trials with the target at the location of the orthogonal orientation compared with trials with uniformly oriented bars, with only 100 msec between the cue and mask onsets. Discriminating these orientations required a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 50–70 msec. The attentional facilitation is transient, in most cases absent, with a cue-mask SOA of 250 msec. These results suggest that the preattentive character of some texture discrimination tasks with SOAs of only 100 msec is vitiated by the involuntary attentional shifts that are caused by orientation differences.     

Mental transformations in the identification of left and right hands.

Subjects determined as rapidly as possible whether each line drawing portrayed a left or a right hand when the drawings were presented in any of four versions (palm or back of either hand) and in any of six orientations in the picture plane. Reaction time varied systematically with orientation and, in the absence of advance information, was over 400 msec longer for the fingers-down orientation. However, when subjects were instructed to imagine a specified (palm or back) view of a specified (left or right) hand in a specified orientation, reaction times to test hands that were consistent with these instructions were short (about 500 msec), independent of orientation, and unacompanied by errors. It is proposed that subjects determine whether a visually presented hand is left or right by moving a mental "phantom" of one of their own hands into the portrayed position and by then comparing its imagined appearance against the appearance of the externally presented hand.     

Motor preparation of manual aiming at a visual target manipulated in size, luminance contrast, and location

We conducted two experiments to investigate whether the motor preparation of manual aiming to a visual target is affected by either the physical characteristics (size or luminance contrast) or spatial characteristics (location) of the target. Reaction time (RT) of both finger lifting (ie stimulus-detection time) and manual aiming (ie movement-triggering time) to the onset of the target was measured. The difference of RT (DRT) between two tasks (ie the difference of task complexity) was examined to clarify the temporal characteristics of manual aiming per se during visuomotor integration. Results show classical characteristics: RT decreased as either the target size or luminance contrast increased. Furthermore, the task-complexity and target-location factors significantly interacted with each other, where the aiming RT was longer than the finger-lifting RT and the effects of target location on RT differed for each task. However, the task factor did not interact with either the size or luminance-contrast factor, implying that the motor preparation of manual aiming is associated with the spatial characteristics rather than the physical characteristics of the target. Inspection of DRT revealed that the time needed for motor preparation for an ipsilateral target was significantly shorter than that for a contralateral target. This was the case both for the left and for the right hand. Foveal targets required longer processing time, implying a disadvantageous function of motor preparation for the gazed target. The left-hand superiority for the target appearing in the left visual field was also observed. Such lateralised effect and left-hand advantage to the left visual field in manual aiming suggest that visuospatial information processing is activated during the preparation of aiming action, with faster processing in the right hemisphere.     

Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture

We investigated the effect of unseen hand posture on cross-modal, visuo-tactile links in covert spatial attention. In Experiment 1, a spatially nonpredictive visual cue was presented to the left or right hemifield shortly before a tactile target on either hand. To examine the spatial coordinates of any cross-modal cuing, the unseen hands were either uncrossed or crossed so that the left hand lay to the right and vice versa. Tactile up/down (i.e., index finger/thumb) judgments were better on the same side of external space as the visual cue, for both crossed and uncrossed postures. Thus, which hand was advantaged by a visual cue in a particular hemifield reversed across the different unseen postures. In Experiment 2, nonpredictive tactile cues now preceded visual targets. Up/down judgments for the latter were better on the same side of external space as the tactile cue, again for both postures. These results demonstrate cross-modal links between vision and touch in exogenous covert spatial attention that remap across changes in unseen hand posture, suggesting a modulatory role for proprioception.     

Hand dominance, attention, and the choice between responses

Thirty pairs of matched right- and left-handed subjects carried out a serial C.RT task involving reaches between 2.4 cm square contact grids set at 2.4 cm intervals in a horizontal line. In one condition they responded with the right hand alone, in a second with the left and in a third they had to choose between hands on each trial responding to left side grids with the left hand and to right side grids with the right.

All subjects took longer to respond when they had to choose between hands than when they used either hand alone. In the one-hand conditions neither group showed any effect of hand dominance. When choices had to be made between hands both groups responded faster with their dominant than with their nondominant hands.

Analysis of the results was undertaken in terms of two hypothetical systems of instructions which might control machines designed to carry out similar tasks. It is concluded that in some tasks hand dominance can be described in terms of an attentional bias towards the field of operation of one effector rather than another. In the present task the effects of such possible attentional biases were shown not to interact with other effects, such as the facilitation of successive responses by repeated use of the same limb. These latter effects seem to depend on processes underlying execution of responses rather than choices between responding limbs.     

Does attention have different effects on line orientation and line arrangement discrimination?

Visual search and texture segregation studies have led to the inference that stimuli differing in the orientation of their component line segments can be distinguished without focal attention, whereas stimuli that differ only in the arrangement of line segments cannot. In most of this research, the locus of attention has not been explicitly manipulated. In the first experiment presented here, attention was directed to a relevant peripheral target by a cue presented near the target location or at the fovea. Effects of attention on orientation discrimination were assessed in a two-alternative forced-choice task with targets that were either: (1) lines that slanted obliquely to the right or left, or were horizontal or vertical, or (2) Y-like targets that had a short arm leading obliquely right or left of a vertical line. In some groups, a four-alternative forced-choice test with lines at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° orientations was used. Discrimination of these targets (i.e. targets that differ in the orientation of component line segments) was only minimally facilitated as the time between the onset of the valid cue and the onset of the target (cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) was increased from 0 or 17 msec to 267 msec. In contrast, discrimination of targets that did not differ in the orientation of component line segments but differed in line arrangement (T-like characters), was greatly facilitated by longer cue-target SOAs. In Experiment 2, a cue misdirected attention on 20% of the trials. A decrement occurred on incorrectly cued trials in comparison to correctly cued trials for both types of stimuli used (lines and Ts). The results from these experiments suggest that discrimination of line orientation benefits less from focal attention than does discrimination of line arrangement, but that both discriminations suffer when attention must be disengaged from an irrelevant spatial location.     

Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks

Three experiments examined sequential effects in choice reaction time tasks. On each trial, a right/left positional judgment was made to a either a pure tone or a luminance increment in a visual array of box elements. In the first two experiments, a preparatory signal was presented prior to each imperative signal to indicate the relevant stimulus modality. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the preparatory and the imperative signal (i.e., 60 msec), subjects were quicker to repeat the same response than to change their response when presented with successive tones, although no such repetition effect occurred on the visual target trials. Subjects were impaired if the stimulus modality changed across successive trials regardless of the modality of the target. At a longer SOA (i.e., 500 msec), these sequential effects were abolished; subjects were assumed to be able to prepare for the relevant modality because of the presentation of the preparatory signal. When the preparatory signals were omitted, in a final experiment, the modality-switching costs were still evident, but now inhibition of return occurred on both the auditory and the visual target trials-subjects were now impaired in responding when the target reappeared at its immediately previous location. It seems, therefore, that the repetition effect and modality-switching effects do dissociate. The data revealed clear differences between orienting attention to a particular spatial locale and focusing attention to a particular sensory modality.     

Effects of location and form cuing on the allocation of attention in the visual field

Two experiments were conducted which tested the effect of two different types of cues on the allocation of attention in the visual field. Subjects responded to a target appearing either 6.5 degrees to the right or to the left of fixation in a field filled with small randomly positioned line segments. The target form was either a circle or diamond in which a horizontal or vertical line segment was positioned. Subjects made a speeded discrimination response on the basis of the orientation of this line segment. In the first experiment, there was always one target at each trial. In the second experiment, both circle and diamond were presented left or right of fixation simultaneously whereby the line segment only appeared in one of the forms. In different conditions, the most likely target location (left or right) and form (circle or diamond) were cued. Control conditions served as a baseline for determining costs and benefits. Reaction time measures showed that the validity of the location cue resulted in both costs and benefits, whereas the validity of the form cue had no such effects. The results cannot be reconciled with the claim of zoom lens theories that spatial attention can switch between different modes of operations. They are also at odds with theories that claim that attention has no spatial locus. The results are consistent with a simple spotlight theory in which spatial attention involves selecting a particular restricted area of the visual field for which the perceptual efficiency is enhanced.