Identification and location tasks rely on different mental processes: a diffusion model account of validity effects in spatial cueing paradigms with emotional stimuli

Spatial cueing paradigms are popular tools to assess human attention to emotional stimuli, but different variants of these paradigms differ in what participants’ primary task is. In one variant, participants indicate the location of the target (location task), whereas in the other they indicate the shape of the target (identification task). In the present paper we test the idea that although these two variants produce seemingly comparable cue validity effects on response times, they rest on different underlying processes. Across four studies (total N?=?397; two in the supplement) using both variants and manipulating the motivational relevance of cue content, diffusion model analyses revealed that cue validity effects in location tasks are primarily driven by response biases, whereas the same effect rests on delay due to attention to the cue in identification tasks. Based on this, we predict and empirically support that a symmetrical distribution of valid and invalid cues would reduce cue validity effects in location tasks to a greater extent than in identification tasks. Across all variants of the task, we fail to replicate the effect of greater cue validity effects for arousing (vs. neutral) stimuli. We discuss the implications of these findings for best practice in spatial cueing research.     

Involuntary attention and brightness contrast

Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) reported that involuntary attention increased perceived contrast. We replicated Carrasco et al. and then tested an alternative hypothesis: With stimuli near threshold, a peripheral cue biased observers to believe a stimulus had been presented in the cued location. Consistent with this hypothesis, the effect disappeared when we used higher-contrast stimuli. We further tested the guessing-bias hypothesis in three ways: (1) In a detection experiment, the cue affected bias, but did not increase d'; (2) when the cue followed the stimulus, we obtained the same results as when the cue preceded the stimulus; (3) in one experiment, some trials contained no stimulus, yet observers responded that the cued blank stimulus had higher contrast than the uncued blank stimulus. The results suggest that the effects of a noninformative peripheral cue are best described in terms of nonperceptual biases.     

Response-specifying cue for action interferes with perception of feature-sharing stimuli

Perceiving a visual stimulus is more difficult when a to-be-executed action is compatible with that stimulus, which is known as blindness to response-compatible stimuli. The present study explored how the factors constituting the action event (i.e., response-specifying cue, response intention, and response feature) affect the occurrence of this blindness effect. The response-specifying cue varied along the horizontal and vertical dimensions, while the response buttons were arranged diagonally. Participants responded based on one dimension randomly determined in a trial-by-trial manner. The response intention varied along a single dimension, whereas the response location and the response-specifying cue varied within both vertical and horizontal dimensions simultaneously. Moreover, the compatibility between the visual stimulus and the response location and the compatibility between that stimulus and the response-specifying cue was separately determined. The blindness effect emerged exclusively based on the feature correspondence between the response-specifying cue of the action task and the visual target of the perceptual task. The size of this stimulus–stimulus (S–S) blindness effect did not differ significantly across conditions, showing no effect of response intention and response location. This finding emphasizes the effect of stimulus factors, rather than response factors, of the action event as a source of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli.     

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.     

Qualities and locations of stimuli and responses affecting discrimination learning of chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger) and pigeons (Columba livia)

Chinchillas and pigeons were used as subjects in separate experiments to study interactions among stimulus and response characteristics in discrimination learning. Both the stimuli and the responses could differ with respect to their "quality" and their "location." Bright versus dim lights and upper versus lower lights served as the stimulus qualities and stimulus locations for the chinchillas, respectively. Red versus green lights and upper versus lower lights served as the stimulus qualities and stimulus locations for the pigeons, respectively. Respond versus no-respond and respond-left versus respond-right served as the response qualities and response locations, for both species, respectively. In both experiments, response-quality performance was superior when the discriminative stimuli differed in quality than when they differed in location, whereas response-location performance was superior when the discriminative stimuli differed in location than when they differed in quality. These results were interpreted within the framework provided by a general law of learning, that is, the "quality-location hypothesis."     

Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later

When a stimulus appears in a previously cued location several hundred milliseconds after the cue, the time required to detect that stimulus is greater than when it appears in an uncued location. This increase in detection time is known as inhibition of return (IOR). It has been suggested that IOR reflects the action of a general attentional mechanism that prevents attention from returning to previously explored loci. At the same time, the robustness of IOR has been recently disputed, given several failures to obtain the effect in tasks requiring discrimination rather than detection. In a series of eight experiments, we evaluated the differences between detection and discrimination tasks with regard to IOR. We found that IOR was consistently obtained with both tasks, although the temporal parameters required to observe IOR were different in detection and discrimination tasks. In our detection task, the effect appeared after a 400-msec delay between cue and target, and was still present after 1,300 msec. In our discrimination task, the effect appeared later and disappeared sooner. The implications of these data for theoretical accounts of IOR are discussed.     

Task requirement and hemifield asymmetry in tachistoscopic partial report performance

It was hypothesized that the amount and direction of differences in tachistoscopic recognition accuracy for the right and the left visual hemifield should depend on the degree to which a partial report task requires exhaustive processing of the test stimulus. Position curves for single-item report were examined using four different tasks. In the Arrow task, Ss had to report a letter which was designated by a bar marker. In the Number task, the position of the critical letter was indicated by the digits 1–8. In the Letter task, the cue stimulus was a letter, and Ss were required to report its position in the test stimulus. In the Alphabetic task, a report on the alphabetically first letter of the test stimulus was required. The tasks were designated to encourage either selective processing (Arrow and Number tasks) or exhaustive processing (Letter and Alphabetic tasks). Right-hemifield superiority was predicted for selective processing, and left-hemifield superiority for exhaustive processing. The predictions were confirmed for the Arrow and Alphabetic tasks. A complete account of the position curves in the Number and Letter tasks required a consideration of the effects of the semantic nature of the cue stimulus and/or the spatial arrangement of cue stimulus and test stimulus. It was concluded that the processing operations underlying partial report are more complex than had been assumed previously.     

Sequential analysis of a Simon task--evidence for an attention-shift account

 We investigated the attention-shift hypothesis of the Simon effect by analysing the effect of repeating relevant colour or irrelevant location of the stimulus in four serial reaction time tasks. In Experiment 1 with short response-stimulus intervals (RSI), we assume that there is no time to engage attention at the fixation cross before the onset of a new stimulus. In agreement with the hypothesis, Experiment 1 reveals no Simon effect when the stimulus location is repeated. In Experiment 2 with long RSI, we observe a Simon effect for location repetitions and alternations. In Experiment 3 with long RSI, we hinder the disengagement of attention by displaying the stimulus after response execution. As expected, the Simon effect is reduced for location repetitions. In Experiment 4 with stimuli additionally presented at the fixation cross, responses are faster if the attention shift towards the centrally presented stimulus corresponds with the location of the required response. Additionally, we argue that binding of the stimulus features into an object or event file better explains the so-called blocking of the automatic response-priming route after a noncorresponding trial. Received: 2 February 2000 / Accepted: 10 November 2000     

On the relation between object and action: Response consistency and stimulus–response compatibility

A series of four experiments investigated factors influencing the selection of objects and responses associated with the objects. The experiments focused on the interaction between response consistency and the spatial compatibility of the response (involving inhibition of an irrelevant distractor) in conditions of task switching. To test for the response consistency effect, a cue indicated the dimension of the display to be selected for the participant's response. The stimulus displays were either consistent, neutral, or inconsistent (including a distractor stimulus) with the response to the stimulus. The responses were either compatible or incompatible with the location of the stimulus. Intertrial dependences were examined by switching or repeating the tasks across trials. The results suggest that links between objects and actions set up by targets can be replaced by links between a distractor and a response under certain conditions. The implications for stimulus and response selection are discussed.     

Note on subjects' hypotheses in multiple-cue probability learning

Subjects' hypotheses in multiple-cue probability learning was studied by trial-by-trial verbal reports in tasks with linear and nonlinear cue-criterion relations. In accordance with earlier findings, the results of the present experiment show that subjects learned linear tasks rapidly, while nonlinear tasks were not learned at all. The subjects' verbal hypotheses show that the subjects were concerned with rules for combining cue values, rather than with cue-criterion functions. This explains why the subjects fail to learn nonlinear multiple-cue tasks. It also shows that, although the subjects seem to learn multiple-cue tasks through a hypothesis testing process of the same kind as in single-cue probability tasks, the hypotheses tested in multiple-cue tasks are different from those tested in single-cue tasks. Finally, the present results suggest that the picture of the subjects' cognitive models of multiple-cue probability learning tasks provided by the customary multiple regression analysis may be fundamentally misleading in that it suggests that the subjects learn the validity of each cue rather than a combination rule.     

返回抑制时程的三因素理论及其发展

综述了返回抑制(Inhibition of return,IOR)出现时程机制的三因素理论内容,支持该理论的实验证据,以及对理论的质疑和发展。该理论认为空间定向收益、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益三个因素共同决定了IOR出现的时程及机制。研究者通过操控任务加工水平或将实验范式相结合的方式对三因素理论提出了质疑和发展。许多关键问题如三个因素存在的认知神经科学证据、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益发挥作用的方式等是未来研究的重点和方向。     

Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action

Research studying visual selective attention has largely examined filtering tasks in which stationary targets are selected from stationary distractors by a physical cue such as location and identity is the reported attribute. During many interactions with the visual environment however, target stimuli are selected by what they are, whereas action is controlled by where the stimulus is located. This study demonstrates that the interference and negative priming effects observed in standard filtering tasks, which suggest that distractors are analyzed and subsequently inhibited during selection, are also observed when targets are selected on the basis of identity and spatial location is the reported attribute. Furthermore, experimental results suggest that inhibition associated with distracting objects in this new task is object-centered, so that if the object is moving through space, inhibition moves with it.     

Location and shape in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is characterized by a delay in responding to a target preceded by an irrelevant stimulus (cue) at the same location, or, in other words, by a response delay when the same location is stimulated twice. It is not clear, however, if the same phenomenon is present when there is a repetition of a simple nonspatial attribute of the stimulus. The present study examines the repetition of shape. Six experiments were conducted. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 6 the stimuli were geometrical shapes, whereas in Experiments 4 and 5 letters were used. In Experiment 1 all the stimuli were presented at fixation, whereas in Experiments 2 to 6 they were presented in the periphery. In Experiments 2 and 3, location and shape of the cue and the target were independently manipulated in order to test independently inhibitory effects (IOR?) attributable to location repetition and shape repetition. Results showed an inhibitory effect for location and a much smaller inhibitory effect for shape. The latter was restricted to the cued location. Experiments 4 and 5 tested the possibility that inhibition caused by shape repetition is due to repetition blindness. Experiment 6 contrasted the presence or absence of a central neutral attractor in the delay interval between presentation of the cue and the target. Taken together the results seem to favor IOR as the basis for the inhibition caused by shape repetition.     

Modelling response selection in task switching: Testing the contingent encoding assumption

The contingent encoding assumption is the idea that response selection in task-switching situations does not begin until the cue and the target have both been encoded. The authors tested the assumption by manipulating response congruency, stimulus order, and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) in two experiments. They found evidence of response selection prior to cue encoding for congruent targets with target–cue order at a long SOA, indicating that the contingent encoding assumption is invalid. The authors describe how contingent encoding can be removed from an existing task-switching model by introducing baseline evidence—task-neutral evidence that serves as a baseline for response selection prior to stimulus encoding. Simulations revealed that the modified model could reproduce the full pattern of response time data and generate responses prior to cue encoding. The authors conclude by discussing directions for further model development.     

Is location cueing inherently superior to color cueing? Not if color is presented early enough

A possible source for the advantage of location cueing over non-spatial cueing is that orienting attention by a location cue is feasible prior to stimulus onset, whereas that is normally not the case with orienting by a non-spatial cue. To examine how critical that source is for observing an advantage, we eliminated it: In a color-preview condition, subjects were to detect a target presented on the background of one of two differently colored circles (where color-location assignment was random). In a no-preview condition, the circles were both gray, but the target was either red or green (where color assignment was random). Cue type (location vs color) was also manipulated. The color preview in Experiment 1 (in which color onset preceded cue onset) was found helpful: Whereas a substantial disparity in validity effects of the two cue types was obtained with no preview, no significant difference was found when a color preview was introduced. The validity effects of both cue types were found to be about the same also in Experiment 2, in which color onset was exactly synchronized with cue onset, and SOA was manipulated. Furthermore, the absence of an SOA x cue type interaction indicated that the time course of the color cue validity did not lag after the time course of the location cue validity, which seems incompatible with the hypothesis that a color cue cannot affect orienting without first computing a location from it prior to cue onset. Overall, the results suggest that the time course of color cueing is not inherently different from that of location cueing once its main disadvantages are removed.     

Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks

Two experiments examined effects of mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks for older and younger adults. In Experiment 1, participants performed two-choice spatial reaction tasks with blocks of pure and mixed compatible and incompatible mappings. In Experiment 2, a compatible or incompatible mapping was mixed with a Simon task for which the mapping of stimulus color to location was relevant and stimulus location was irrelevant. In both experiments, older adults showed larger mixing costs than younger adults and larger compatibility effects, with the differences particularly pronounced in Experiment 1 when location mappings were mixed. In mixed conditions, when stimulus location was relevant, older adults benefited more than younger adults from complete repetition of the task and stimulus from the preceding trial. When stimulus location was irrelevant, the benefit of complete repetition did not differ reliably between age groups. The results suggest that the age-related deficit associated with mixing mappings and tasks is primarily due to older adults having more difficulty separating task sets that activate conflicting response codes.     

Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.     

Does attention affect visual feature integration?

Two questions are investigated in this work: first, whether the integration of color and shape information is affected by attending to the stimulus location, and second, whether attending to a stimulus location enhances the perceptual representation of the stimulus or merely affects decision processes. In three experiments, subjects were briefly presented with colored letters. On most trials, subjects were precued to the stimulus location (valid cue); on some trials, a nonstimulus location was cued (invalid cue). Subjects were less likely to incorrectly combine colors and letter shapes following a valid cue. The attentional facilitation afforded by the cue was not limited to feature integration but also affected the registration of features. However, when the amount of feature information was strictly controlled, attention still affected feature integration. The results indicate that orienting attention to the location of the cue affects the quality of the perceptual representation for features and their integration.     

Lexical processing while deciding what task to perform: reading aloud in the context of the task set paradigm

The results of two experiments provide the first direct demonstration that subjects can process a word lexically despite concurrently being engaged in decoding a task cue telling them which of two tasks to perform. These results, taken together with others, point to qualitative differences between the mind‘s ability to engage in lexical versus sublexical processing during the time they are engaged with other tasks. The emerging picture is one in which some form of resource(s) plays little role during lexical processing whereas the need for some form of resource(s) during sublexical processing serves to bottleneck performance.     

The effect of pre-cueing on spatial attention across perception and action

It is well established that processes of perception and action interact. A key question concerns the role of attention in the interaction between perception-action processes. We tested the hypothesis that spatial attention is shared by perception and action. We created a dual-task paradigm: In one task, spatial information is relevant for perception (spatial-input task) but not for action, and in a second task, spatial information is relevant for action (spatial-output task) but not for perception. We used endogenous pre-cueing, with two between-subjects conditions: In one condition the cue was predictive only for the target location in the spatial-input task; in a second condition the cue was predictive only for the location of the response in the spatial-output task. In both conditions, the cueing equally affected both tasks, regardless of the information conveyed by the cue. This finding directly supports the shared input-output attention hypothesis.