A high-loaded hemisphere successfully ignores distractors

We used a response competition paradigm to investigate whether a distractor is effectively rejected under conditions where it is projected to a highly-loaded hemisphere. In two experiments we asked right-handed participants to identify a target among five task-relevant letters while they ignored a distractor. We manipulated both the distractor visual-field (low-load/high-load) and the compatibility of the target and the distractor. In the low-loaded visual-field, we presented a distractor with one task-relevant stimulus to one visual-field and the remaining task-relevant stimuli to the opposite visual-field. In the high-loaded visual-field, we presented a distractor and task-relevant stimuli in reverse. In Experiment 1 (left/right), we found a compatibility effect for the low-loaded, but not for the high-loaded visual-field. In Experiment 2, this modulation of the compatibility effect did not appear when the upper/lower visual-field was manipulated. These findings demonstrate that a distractor is successfully ignored when it is presented to a highly-loaded hemisphere.     

Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action

In a series of three experiments requiring selection of real objects for action, we investigated whether characteristics of the planned action and/or the “affordances” of target and distractor objects affected interference caused by distractors. In all ofthe experiments, the target object was selectedon the basis of colour and was presented alone or with a distractor object. We examined the effect of type of response (button press, grasping, or pointing), object affordances (compatibility with the acting hand, affordances for grasping or pointing), and target/distractor positions (left or right) on distractor interference (reaction time differences between trials with and without distractors). Different patterns of distractor interference were associated with different motor responses. In the button-press conditions of each experiment, distractor interference was largely determined by perceptual salience (e.g., proximity to initial visual fixation). In contrast, in tasks requiring action upon the objects in the array, distractors with handles caused greater interference than those without handles, irrespective of whether the intended action was pointing or grasping. Additionally, handled distractors were relatively more salient when their affordances for grasping were strong (handle direction compatible with the acting hand) than when affordances were weak. These data suggest that attentional highlighting of specific target and distractor features is a function of intended actions.     

Peripheral spatial cues modulate spatial congruency effects: Analysing the “locus” of the cueing modulation

The spatial Stroop effect (slower left/right responses to left/right pointing arrows when they appear at spatially incongruent than at congruent locations) has often been used to examine the processing of irrelevant spatial information. We present data from two experiments in which the magnitude of such location-based interference is drastically reduced when the location of the arrow is precued by a spatial noninformative cue. The main aim of the present study was to clarify whether such modulation takes place at perceptual or at response-related stages of processing. First, we manipulated the spatial compatibility between the direction of the arrow and the location of the response so that each subject would respond with spatially compatible vs. incompatible key presses for each half of the experiment. We found that such manipulation did not have any effect on the standard reduction of the congruency effect by peripheral cues. In a second experiment, subjects made left/right key presses to directional arrows pointing bottom/up, which could appear equally often at left/right/bottom/up locations. In cued trials, we found a reduction of the congruency effect on the vertical axis (stimulus location-direction congruency), whereas congruency was unaffected by cueing in targets presented on the horizontal axis (stimulus-response location congruency). According to these results, we conclude that spatial noninformative cues modulate spatial Stroop interference by reducing the conflict between stimulus dimensions at perceptual- rather than motor-related stages of processing.     

Response readiness modulates the development of association-based automaticity in masked priming

The current study investigated the role of the automatization of stimulus and response (S-R) associations and response readiness in triggering the motor activation for masked primes in two experiments. The automatization of associations was manipulated by employing different types of stimuli, and response readiness was manipulated by varying the relative frequency of Go trials in a modified Go/No-Go task. Compatibility (compatible and incompatible), stimulus type (arrows and parallel lines), and test session (Sessions 1, 2, and 3) were manipulated in a high response-readiness condition (Experiment 1) and in a low response-readiness condition (Experiment 2). Negative compatibility effects (NCEs) occurred regardless of session and experiment in the arrow stimuli condition. However, in the parallel-line stimuli condition, no significant compatibility effect (CE) appeared regardless of the experiment in Sessions 1 and 2, whereas a significant NCE appeared in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 in Session 3. These results are consistent with the claim that motor activation can only occur if the association between specific stimuli and specific responses has been automatized by previous practice, and response readiness can modulate the development of automaticity, but this modulation will have a minimal effect once the association is automatized. The findings also provide experimental evidence for the assumption that the formation of association-based automaticity could be modulated by top-down control (e.g., response readiness).     

Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters

The presence of a distracting stimulus during performance of the Stroop color-naming task leads to dilution of the Stroop effect. Because the automatic activation of word meaning may interfere with the task-relevant stimulus feature (text color; stimulus-stimulus [S-S] interference) and the response (saying the text color; stimulus-response [S-R] interference), it is unclear which of these types of interference is diluted. We introduce a new dilution paradigm using word- and arrow-based Simon tasks, in which only S-R interference is present. Participants made a left or right response to a central color target. A task-irrelevant location-word (Experiment 1) or arrow (Experiment 2) distractor adjacent to the target produced S-R compatibility effects. An additional neutral word or symbol series (diluter) was sometimes presented on the opposite side of the target from the distractor. The compatibility effect was smaller when the distractor and diluter category domains matched than when they mismatched. This result provides evidence that S-R compatibility effects are susceptible to the presence of diluters that are categorically similar to the distractors.     

特征和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用

本研究采用训练−测试范式考察颜色和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用。实验1考察是否存在基于具体位置的价值驱动的注意捕获效应。在训练阶段, 被试对8个位置中两个位置出现的红色目标反应伴随着高奖励反馈, 而对另外两个位置出现的红色目标反应伴随着低奖励反馈, 其它4个位置为中性位置, 没有目标出现。在测试阶段, 一半试次中红色刺激作为分心物出现。结果发现, 只有当分心刺激出现在高奖励位置和两个高奖励位置之间的中性位置时才能够捕获注意; 实验2考察颜色和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的交互作用。在训练阶段, 将颜色特征和位置信息联合起来进行学习。在测试阶段, 和高、低奖励相联结的颜色刺激各在1/3试次中作为分心物出现。结果发现, 只有当高奖励颜色出现在高奖励位置或出现在高奖励位置之间的中性位置时才能够捕获注意。研究结果表明：(1)位置联结的价值驱动的注意捕获效应能够泛化到特定邻近位置上; (2)个体在训练阶段将颜色和位置的联合特征与奖励建立联结, 训练阶段建立的联结不能泛化到部分特征上。价值驱动注意捕获效应的泛化具有选择性。     

Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets

Response retrieval theories assume that stimuli and responses become integrated into “event files” (Hommel, 1998) in memory so that a second encounter with a specific stimulus automatically retrieves the response that was previously associated with this stimulus. In this article, we tested a specific prediction of a recent variant of stimulus retrieval theories as introduced by Rothermund, Wentura, and De Houwer (2005): In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli are automatically bound to distractor stimuli as well; repeating the distractor should retrieve the response to the target that formerly accompanied the distractor. In three experiments we confirmed this prediction: Distractor repetition facilitated responding in the probe in the case of response repetition whereas repeating the distractor delayed responding in the case of response change.     

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus,but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus-response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.     

Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval

Research on human action has extensively covered controlled and automatic processes in the transformation of stimulus information into motor action, and how conflict between both types of processes is solved. However, the question of how automatic stimulus–response (S–R) translation per se depends on top-down control states remains unanswered. The present study addressed this issue by manipulating top-down control state (instructed S–R mapping) and automatic bottom-up processing (retrieval of S–R memory traces) independently from each other. Using a color/shape task-switching paradigm, we compared cross-talk triggered by distractor stimuli, for which the instructed S–R mapping and the S–R associations compiled at the beginning of the experiment matched, with the cross-talk triggered by distractor stimuli, for which (re-)instructed mapping and compiled S–R associations did not match. We show that the latter distractors do not yield any cross-talk in RTs and even reversed cross-talk in error rates, demonstrating that automatic S–R retrieval is modulated by top-down control states.     

Gaze and arrow distractors influence saccade trajectories similarly

Perceiving someone's averted eye-gaze is thought to result in an automatic shift of attention and in the preparation of an oculomotor response in the direction of perceived gaze. Although gaze cues have been regarded as being special in this respect, recent studies have found evidence for automatic attention shifts with nonsocial stimuli, such as arrow cues. Here, we directly compared the effects of social and nonsocial cues on eye movement preparation by examining the modulation of saccade trajectories made in the presence of eye-gaze, arrows, or peripheral distractors. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the distractor and the target, saccades deviated towards the direction of centrally presented arrow distractors, but away from the peripheral distractors. No significant trajectory deviations were found for gaze distractors. At the longer SOA, saccades deviated away from the direction of the distractor for all three distractor types, but deviations were smaller for the centrally presented gaze and arrow distractors. These effects were independent of whether line-drawings or photos of faces were used and could not be explained by differences in the spatial properties of the peripheral distractor. The results suggest that all three types of distractors (gaze, arrow, peripheral) can induce the automatic programming of an eye movement. Moreover, the findings suggest that gaze and arrow distractors affect oculomotor preparation similarly, whereas peripheral distractors, which are classically regarded as eliciting an automatic shift of attention and an oculomotor response, induce a stronger and faster acting influence on response preparation and the corresponding inhibition of that response.     

Blindness to response-compatible stimuli in the psychological refractory period paradigm

This study investigated the conditions under which the processing in a speeded response task interferes with concurrent processing in a visual encoding task. Three experiments used a dual-task paradigm, in which a speeded left or right response to at one was combined with the identification of a masked left-or right pointing arrow following the tone with variable SOA. Two additional experiments tested the impact of the presentation of pure tone on visual encoding.There were four major findings. First, an unspecific decrease in identification accuracy was observed with decreasing SOA. Second, a blindness to response-compatible stimuli was observed with speeded responses. Third, a specific interference was found between low- and high-pitched tones and left- or right-pointing arrows. Fourth, the specific tone-arrow interference modulated the specific responsearrow interference when the task allowed both to occur simultaneously. The present findings, which suggest both procedural and structural interference between response preparation and stimulus encoding, are discussed in terms of a two-stage model of action planning.     

Retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations as a source of negative priming

Priming effects of ignored distractor words were investigated in a task-switching situation that allowed an orthogonal variation of priming and response compatibility between prime and probe. Across 3 experiments, the authors obtained a disordinal interaction of priming and response relation. Responding was delayed in the ignored repetition condition if different responses were required for identical stimuli in the prime and probe (negative priming). Repeating the prime distractor in the probe facilitated responding if the same response was required in the prime and in the probe (positive priming). The same pattern of results was replicated in a letter-matching task without task switching (Experiment 4). Findings lend support to a new model that explains negative priming in terms of an automatic retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations.     

Grasping remaps the distribution of visuospatial attention and enhances competing action activation

We examined how action goals influence the distribution of visuospatial attention near the body (Experiment 1) and how the temporal relationship between distractors and targets modifies shifts in visuospatial attention (Experiment 2). Targets were light emitting diodes (LEDs) in the left and right hemispace of a visual display. Following left or right target illumination, participants reached to point-to or grasp target object in blocked trials. Coincident with target onset, a distractor LED illuminated in the same or opposite hemispace between the initiation point and target, or no distractor appeared. In Experiment 1, during grasping there was a larger temporal interference effect (slower reach initiation) than with pointing. When grasping versus pointing, participants deviated more towards same-side distractors and away from opposite-side distractors. In Experiment 2, distractors onset 200ms prior to (?200-ms), coincident with (0 ms), or 200ms following (+200 ms) the target. For both reach types, ?200-ms distractors had greater onset temporal interference than 0 ms and +200-ms distractors. For grasping, +200 ms distractors had larger temporal interference than 0 ms distractors. For ?200-ms, reach trajectories deviated more towards opposite-side distractors and away from same-side distractors, the reverse of the pattern for 0 ms and +200-ms distractors.     

Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: the role of load

In daily life (e.g., in the work environment) people are often distracted by stimuli that are clearly irrelevant to the current task and should be ignored. In contrast, much applied distraction research has focused on task interruptions by information that requires a response and therefore cannot be ignored. Moreover, the most commonly used laboratory measures of distractibility (e.g., in the response-competition and attentional-capture paradigms), typically involve distractors that are task relevant (e.g., through response associations or location). A series of experiments assessed interference effects from stimuli that are entirely unrelated to the current task, comparing the effects of perceptual load on task-irrelevant and task-relevant (response competing) distractors. The results showed that an entirely irrelevant distractor can interfere with task performance to the same extent as a response-competing distractor and that, as with other types of distractors, the interfering effects of the irrelevant distractors can be eliminated with high perceptual load in the relevant task. These findings establish a new laboratory measure of a form of distractibility common to everyday life and highlight load as an important determinant of such distractibility.     

Integrating the irrelevant sound

A distractor can be integrated with a target response and the subsequent repetition of the distractor can facilitate or hamper responding depending on whether the same or a different response is required, a phenomenon labeled distractor-response binding. In two experiments we used a priming paradigm with an identification task to investigate influences of stimulus grouping on the binding of irrelevant stimuli (distractors) and responses in audition. In a grouped condition participants heard relevant and irrelevant sounds in one central location, whereas in a non-grouped condition the relevant sound was presented to one ear and the irrelevant sound was presented to the other ear. Distractor-based retrieval of the prime response was stronger for the grouped compared to the non-grouped presentation of stimuli indicating that binding of irrelevant auditory stimuli with responses is modulated by perceptual grouping.     

On the fate of distractor representations

Research on the topic of distractor inhibition has used different empirical approaches to study how the human mind selects relevant information from the environment, and the results are controversially discussed. One key question that typically arises is how selection deals with the irrelevant information. We used a new selection task, in which participants sometimes had to respond to the distractors instead of the target. Importantly, we varied the time interval between stimuli onset and the cue that signaled participants to respond to the distractors. We analyzed RTs and error rates from responses to distractors as a function of how long the target had been processed (and the distractor ignored) before the cue required a response to the distractor (i.e., stimulus-cue SOA). The data are compatible with selection models assuming that distractor stimuli are initially activated and then deactivated. Thus, we argue for selection models assuming top down deactivation of distractor representations that work in parallel with top down activation of target representations.     

Influence of stimulus type on effects of flanker,flanker position,and trial sequence in a saccadic eye movement task

Using the flanker paradigm in a task requiring eye movement responses, we examined how stimulus type (arrows vs. letters) modulated effects of flanker and flanker position. Further, we examined trial sequence effects and the impact of stimulus type on these effects. Participants responded to a central target with a left- or rightward saccade. We reasoned that arrows, being overlearned symbols of direction, are processed with less effort and are therefore linked more easily to a direction and a required response than are letters. The main findings demonstrate that (a) flanker effects were stronger for arrows than for letters, (b) flanker position more strongly modulated the flanker effect for letters than for arrows, and (c) trial sequence effects partly differed between the two stimulus types. We discuss these findings in the context of a more automatic and effortless processing of arrow relative to letter stimuli.     

Spatial Simon effects with nonspatial responses

Recent studies have shown that spatial Simon effects can be modulated by short-term associations that are set up as a result of task instructions. I examined whether spatial Simon effects can also be produced by short-term associations even when the responses are unrelated to spatial position. Participants were to say “cale” or “cole” on the basis of the direction of arrows (i.e., left or right), the meaning of words (i.e.,left orright), and the color of squares presented left or right of the screen center. Responses to squares were faster when the correct response was associated with the same position as the irrelevant position of the square (e.g., say “cale” to a square on the left when “cale” was assigned to the wordleft and the left arrow). This new type of stimulus-response compatibility effect provides the first evidence for short-term associations that involve mode-independent representations.     

Retinal location and its effect on the spatial distribution of visual attention

A series of studies tested for distractor compatibility effects across wide target/distractor distances (0.6 degree to 20 degrees of visual angle). The effects of precue condition, constant/varied target location, horizontal/vertical distractor distance, and foveal/peripheral presentation were studied. Results show strong compatibility effects across wide distances when distractors are at peripheral retinal locations. When both stimuli were presented at the same peripheral location in opposite hemifields, compatibility effects were evident within an area of at least 2.5 degrees of visual angle. In contrast, when foveally placed distractors were used, compatibility effects were found primarily with target letters positioned near. The findings suggest that distance effects are not homogeneous across retinal location.     

Repetition and laterality effects on recognition memory for words and pictures*

Recognition memory for a list of words was tested by presenting a series of items with Ss instructed to make positive responses to targets (list items) and negative responses to distractors (nonlist items). The test items were either words or pictures, and they were presented tachistoscopically either to the left or right visual field. The results showed mean response latencies to be generally faster for stimuli presented to the right visual field. Response times were faster for target and distractor stimuli on their second test presentations than on initial tests, but this effect was much larger for targets. Repetitions were shown to decrease the amount of time necessary to execute the stimulus encoding and initial retrieval stages of recognition. This was also true, although to a lesser extent, if different stimulus forms (words or pictures) were used on the two tests. Subsequent recognition stages, including memory search and decision processes. were apparently independent of test stimulus form.