Are spatial and temporal attention independent?

Participants searched for one of two target letters in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) sequence of 17 successive frames, each containing four letters arranged into a box around a central fixation point. In control trial blocks, the participants had no information about when or where one of the target letters would appear. In other trial blocks, visual cues were given to indicate with 100% validity either the spatial location of the target, the time at which it would be presented, or both where and when it would appear. The results showed that both types of cues were effective on their own in speeding target identification, and their effects combined additively when the cues were presented and used together. These results support a growing body of evidence indicating that early attentional selection of information in vision is independently attuned to spatial and temporal properties of the environment.     

Target- and effect-directed actions towards temporal goals: Similar mechanisms?

The goal of an action can consist of generating a change in the environment (to produce an effect) or changing one's own situation in the environment (to move to a physical target). To investigate whether the mechanisms of effect-directed and target-directed action control are similar, participants performed continuous reversal movements. They either synchronized movement reversals with regularly presented tones (temporal targets) or produced tones at reversals isochronously (temporal effects). In both goal conditions an irrelevant goal characteristic was integrated into the goal representation (loudness, Experiment 1). When targets and effects were presented within the same reversal movement, similarities were enhanced (Experiment 2). When the task posed spatial demands in addition to temporal demands, target- and effect-directed movement kinematics changed equally with tempo (Experiment 3). Correlations between target-directed and effect-directed movements in temporal variability indicated similar timing mechanisms (Experiments 1 and 2). Only gradual differences between target- and effect-directed movements were observed. We conclude that the same mechanisms of action control, including the anticipation of upcoming events, underlie effect-directed and target-directed movements. Ideomotor theories of action control should incorporate action targets as goals similar to action effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: different underlying mechanisms?

Reaction times are usually faster when stimulus and response occur at the same location than when they do not, even if stimulus location is irrelevant to the task (Simon effect). This effect was found with both horizontal and vertical stimulus-response arrangements. The same mechanisms have been proposed to be involved in either case. Here, we compared a horizontal and a vertical Simon task by means of a RT time-course analysis of the Simon effect. Also, we analysed the lateralised readiness potential (LRP), an index of covert response-preparation processes. In the horizontal task, the Simon effect decays over time and pre-activation occurs above the motor cortex ipsilateral to the stimulus. In contrast, the Simon effect does not decay over time and no early incorrect LRP deflection is observed in the vertical task. These findings suggest that typical activation accounts can fit only the horizontal Simon effect, while a translation explanation is more suitable for the vertical Simon effect.     

Spatial sustained attention: better focused than divided?

Visuospatial attention was studied using three different reaction time tasks in a sustained attention paradigm (N = 35). Contrasting with findings from a phasic attention paradigm, our results suggest an equal ability to divide or focus sustained attention in the left and right fields in simple RT, a Go/No go-task, and choice RT.     

The effects of conversation on attention and peripheral detection: Is talking with a passenger and talking on the cell phone different?

In this study conversation with a remote person (hands-free phone), an in-vehicle person (passenger), and a no conversation (baseline) condition were compared on measures of attention and peripheral detection. We held conversation pace constant so that any difference found in attention or peripheral detection could be attributed to the distinctive feature of the type of conversation (remote, in-vehicle). The difficulty level of the verbal task was included as a second independent variable. Forty-eight undergraduate students participated in all conditions of a within-subjects design. The results revealed that conversation resulted in slower reactions and fewer correct responses on both attention and Peripheral Detection tasks compared to no conversation, while conversation type (remote/in-person) did not make a significant difference. Difficulty of the verbal task affected performance on the Peripheral Detection task but not on the attention task. These findings imply that conversation has a negative effect on attention and peripheral detection which are important components of driving. This effect may be greater with difficult conversations.     

Does size rescaling require central attention?

The goal of the present experiment was to determine if object size rescaling in the shape-matching task requires central resources. Two polygons were presented side by side as the second task in a psychological refractory period paradigm. The polygons could be the same as each other or mirror images of each other and the size ratio between the two polygons was varied. In the first task, subjects were required to make a speeded response to the pitch of a tone. The polygon task followed at varying SOAs and the subjects then made a speeded same/mirror image judgement on the polygons. The size ratio effect was additive with SOA indicating that size rescaling is capacity demanding and that it requires central attention.     

Spatial coding and central patterns: is there something special about the eyes?

In this study we investigated in a Simon-like task whether task-irrelevant spatial information, delivered by centrally presented patterns, interfered with response selection in the same way as laterally presented stimuli. Second, we asked whether such interference was equal for different kinds of stimuli. Participants were required to respond to the colour of two framed squares, two arrows, or two schematic eyes by pressing one of two lateralized response keys. The results consistently show that the Simon effect occurs independently of the nature of the stimulus, as classically reported for lateralized stimuli. Response times were influenced by the direction and frame-relative position of the stimuli, being faster for responses corresponding to the direction indicated by the stimuli than for noncorresponding responses regardless of stimulus types. Contrary to findings with lateralized nondirectional stimuli, such an effect increased with increasing RTs indicating that for centrally presented patterns the extraction of spatial information is time consuming.     

Does attention impair temporal discrimination? Examining non-attentional accounts

Recently, Yeshurun and Levy (Psychol Sci 14:225-231, 2003) have provided evidence for the notion that visual attention impairs the temporal resolution of the visual system. Specifically, the detection of a temporal gap within a visual stimulus was impaired when a cue directed attention towards the spatial location of the stimulus. As this negative cueing effect is important to constrain theories about visual attention, we further investigated this novel effect and assessed whether it truly reflects an attentional effect. Experiment 1 examines whether the negative cueing effect is due to local temporal interference, and Experiments 2 and 3 investigate whether it reflects a luminance confound. The complete pattern of results argues against these alternatives and thus further strengthens the conclusion of Yeshurun and Levy (Psychol Sci 14: 225-231, 2003).     

Response inhibition in motor and oculomotor conflict tasks: Different mechanisms,different dynamics?

Previous research has shown that the appearance of task-irrelevant abrupt onsets influences saccadic eye movements during visual search and may slow down manual reactions to target stimuli. Analysis of reaction time distributions in the present study offers evidence suggesting that top-down inhibition processes actively suppress oculomotor or motor responses elicited by a salient distractor, in order to resolve the conflict that arises when reflex-like and deliberate responses are in opposition. Twenty-six participants carried out a variation of the oculomotor capture task. They were instructed to respond with either a saccade toward or with a button press at the side of the hemifield in which a target color singleton appeared. A distractor stimulus could appear either in the same or in the opposite hemifield. Delta plots revealed competition between reflex-like and deliberate response activation, and highlighted selective inhibition of automatic responses: While participants generally responded more slowly in incongruent compared to congruent situations, this effect diminished and even reversed in the slowest speed quantiles. These effects were present in both the oculomotor and motor response-mode conditions.     

Centrality ratings,forensic relevance,and production frequency: Which one best identifies central and peripheral items?

Production frequency has often been used to identify central and peripheral information, under the assumption that high frequency implies that the item is central. However, no research to date has tested the relationship between centrality and frequency. Participants watched a video of a bank robbery and completed a free recall test, from which frequency for recalled items was computed. Two groups then watched the same video and rated centrality and forensic relevance for each item. Results showed that most, but not all, items with high frequency were rated as central and forensically relevant but that low frequency items were not diagnostic of either item centrality or forensic relevance. Forensic relevance was a better indicator of item centrality than frequency. We concluded that frequency measures should be avoided to determine centrality. Also, if centrality ratings cannot be collected, forensic relevance ratings may be more appropriate for this purpose.     

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.     

Are there fundamental differences in the peripheral mechanisms of visceral and somatic pain?

There are some conspicuous differences between the sensibilities of cutaneous and visceral tissues: (1) Direct trauma, which readily produces pain when applied to the skin, is mostly without effect in healthy visceral tissue. (2) Pain that arises from visceral tissues is initially often poorly localised and diffuse. (3) With time, visceral pains are often referred to more superficial structures. (4) The site of referred pain may also show hyperalgesia. (5) In disease states, the afflicted viscera may also become hyperalgesic. In this target article, I consider to what extent differences in the physiology, anatomy, and chemistry of peripheral processing systems explain these different sensibilities. In almost every aspect, there are subtle differences in the properties of the processing mechanisms for cutaneous and visceral information. These may arise because of distinct developmental cues operating in the two domains. Many of the differences between visceral and cutaneous afferents are quantitative rather than qualitative. The quantitative differences, for example in the density of afferent innervation, can be large. The quantitative differences in the numbers of afferents alone may be a sufficient explanation for some aspects of the differential sensibility, for example, the poor localisation of sensation and the apparent insensitivity to focal yet tissue-damaging stimuli. In addition, the few clear qualitative differences apparent in the innervations of the two tissue types may be of special importance. That the encoding of visceral nociceptive events may occur by an intensity mechanism rather than a specificity mechanism could be the key difference in viscerosensory and somatosensory processing.     

Lapsed attention to elapsed time? Individual differences in working memory capacity and temporal reproduction

Working memory capacity (WMC) predicts individual differences in a wide range of mental abilities. In three experiments we examined whether WMC would predict temporal judgment. Low-WMC temporal reproductions were consistently too long for the shortest duration and too short for the longest, but were accurate (unbiased) for the intermediate. In contrast, high-WMC temporal reproductions were more accurate (unbiased) across the range. Thus low-WMC showed a classic “migration effect” (Vierordt's Law) to a greater extent than high-WMC. Furthermore reproduction errors depended more on temporal context than the absolute durations of “shortest,” “longest,” and “intermediate.” Low-WMC reproductions were overall more variable than high-WMC. General fluid intelligence (gF) was also related to temporal bias and variability. However, WMC-related timing differences were only attenuated and not eliminated with gF as covariate. Results are discussed in terms of attention, memory, and other psychological constructs.     

The effects of divided attention on encoding processes under incidental and intentional learning instructions: Underlying mechanisms?

Divided attention (DA) at encoding has been shown to significantly disrupt later memory for the studied information. However, what type of processing gets disrupted during DA remains unresolved. In this study, we assessed the degree to which strategic effortful processes are affected under DA by comparing the effects of DA at encoding under intentional and pure incidental learning instructions. In three experiments, participants studied list of words or word pairs under either full or divided attention. Results of three experiments, which used different methodologies, converged to show that the effects of DA at encoding reduce memory performance to the same degree under incidental and intentional learning. Secondary task performance indicated that encoding under intentional learning instructions was more effortful than under incidental learning instructions. In addition, the results indicated enhanced attention to the initial appearance of the words under both types of learning instructions. Results are interpreted to imply that other processes, rather than only strategic effortful ones, might be affected by DA at encoding.     

Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load

The ability to remain focused on goal-relevant stimuli in the presence of potentially interfering distractors is crucial for any coherent cognitive function. However, simply instructing people to ignore goal-irrelevant stimuli is not sufficient for preventing their processing. Recent research reveals that distractor processing depends critically on the level and type of load involved in the processing of goal-relevant information. Whereas high perceptual load can eliminate distractor processing, high load on "frontal" cognitive control processes increases distractor processing. These findings provide a resolution to the long-standing early and late selection debate within a load theory of attention that accommodates behavioural and neuroimaging data within a framework that integrates attention research with executive function.     

Perceptual inertia: spatial attention and warning foreperiod?

Perceptual inertia refers to a potential explanation for the observation that during a short period after stimulus onset, the visual system is insensitive to discriminatory detail. The present study attempted to replicate this empirical result in a simple one-item letter-identification task. The results provided little if any support for the construct of perceptual inertia. In the five experiments reported, evidence consistent with perceptual inertia was only obtained in Experiment 5. However, the Experiment 5 results can at least equally parsimoniously be explained in terms of two standard explanatory factors: an effect of precuing of the target position (selective attention) and foreperiod duration (general preparation). Received: 27 September 1999 / Accepted: 11 February 2000