Attention,instruction, and response representation

A two-dimensional Simon-type task was devised to investigate the impact of task requirements and explicit instructions on spatial action coding. Subjects performed actions that were defined on two spatial dimensions: horizontal (left-right) or vertical (top-bottom). The relevant stimulus feature was nonspatial but the stimuli varied on the horizontal and the vertical dimension, so that horizontal and vertical S-R compatibility effects could be measured separately. Implicit task requirements were manipulated by having the subjects perform an unrelated task before the Simon task—a task in which only one of the two spatial dimensions was relevant. Instructions were varied by describing the responses in the unrelated priming task and/or in the Simon task in spatial terms or by referring to nonspatial features of the response keys. Priming a particular dimension increased the Simon effect on that dimension, whereas instructions had no differential effect. These findings suggest that, first, drawing attention to a particular dimension leads to a stronger contribution to event representation of those features defined on that dimension (intentional weighting) and, second, that instructions do not affect action coding if the manipulation does not change the task goal.     

Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Attractiveness

The human face communicates an impressive number of visual signals. Although adults' ratings of facial attractiveness are consistent across studies, even cross-culturally, there has been considerable controversy surrounding attempts to identify the facial features that cause faces to be judged attractive or unattractive. Studies of physical attractiveness have attempted to identify the features that contribute to attractiveness by studying the relationships between attractiveness and (a) symmetry, (b) averageness, and (c) nonaverage sexually dimorphic features (hormone markers). Evolutionary psychology proposes that these characteristics all pertain to health, suggesting that humans have evolved to view certain features as attractive because they were displayed by healthy individuals. However, the question remains how single features that are considered attractive relate to each other, and if they form a single ornament that signals mate quality. Moreover, some researchers have recently explained attractiveness preferences in terms of individual differences that are predictable. This article briefly describes what is currently known from attractiveness research, reviews some recent advances, and suggests areas for future researchers' attention.     

Responding to object files: Automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects

Spatial information is assumed to play a central, organizing role in object perception and to be an important ingredient of object representations. Here, evidence is provided to show that automatically integrated spatial object information is also functional in guiding spatial action. In particular, retrieving nonspatial information about a previewed object facilitates responses that spatially correspond to this object. This is true whether the object is still in sight or has already disappeared. So, forming an object representation entails the integration and storage of action-related information concerning the action that the object affords.     

Lag-1 sparing in the attentional blink: Benefits and costs of integrating two events into a single episode

When people monitor a visual stream of rapidly presented stimuli for two targets (T1 and T2), they often miss T2 if it falls into a time window of about half a second after T1 onset—the attentional blink. However, if T2 immediately follows T1, performance is often reported being as good as that at long lags—the so-called Lag-1 sparing effect. Two experiments investigated the mechanisms underlying this effect. Experiment 1 showed that, at Lag 1, requiring subjects to correctly report both identity and temporal order of targets produces relatively good performance on T2 but relatively bad performance on T1. Experiment 2 confirmed that subjects often confuse target order at short lags, especially if the two targets are equally easy to discriminate. Results suggest that, if two targets appear in close succession, they compete for attentional resources. If the two competitors are of unequal strength the stronger one is more likely to win and be reported at the expense of the other. If the two are equally strong, however, they will often be integrated into the same attentional episode and thus get both access to attentional resources. But this comes with a cost, as it eliminates information about the targets' temporal order.