Consequences of allocating attention to locations and to other attributes

Simple reaction time to a light target may be lengthened when the light is preceded by a nonin-formative s timulus at the same location. This is known asinhibition of return. Does inhibition of return result if the relation between successive stimuli is defined in terms of color or orientation? Subjects pressed a key when a small square was displayed. In Experiments 1–3, location and color of the square were manipulated; there was inhibition of return based on location, but not on color. In Experiments 4–5, a confounding of color and luminance was eliminated, with no change in results. In Experiments 6–7, the background was composed of vertical stripes and the squares were composed of left- or right-oriented diagonal stripes. There was evidence of inhibition of return based on location, but not on orientation. These data support the idea that location is processed differently from other features.     

Further evidence for a time-independent shift of the focus of attention

The separation between stimuli was manipulated in a same-different matching task. In Experiment 1, stimuli were upright Ts and/or Ls, whereas in Experiment 2, they were rotated Ts and/or Ls. In both experiments, mean reaction time (RT) for the same-different judgment did not increase as a function of interletter separation, suggesting either that the time needed to relocate attention was independent of distance, or that the stimuli were processed in parallel. These alternatives were tested in a third experiment, with a diagnostic for parallel processing proposed by Egeth and Dagenbach (1991). The diagnostic indicated that the rotated Ts and Ls in Experiment 2 were processed serially. If serial processing implies the utilization of attention, then the results of Experiment 2 suggest that relocation of attention is time-invariant with respect to distance.     

Use of eye movement to measure smokers' attentional bias to smoking-related cues.

Smokers have attentional biases towards smoking-related cues, and such cues elicit cravings. Smokers also feel anxious during nicotine deprivation, and anxiety may exacerbate attentional biases toward aversive cues. We examined the attentional bias of smokers (n = 14) and a control group of nonsmokers (n = 16) towards smoking-related and aversive cues. Using an eye-tracking device, we measured eye movement when smoking-related, aversive, and control cues were presented simultaneously. We analyzed the number of initial fixations, and gaze duration, to identify the attentional bias. Smokers initially fixed their gaze on aversive cues, and maintained their gaze longer on smoking-related cues, in comparison to the control group. These results suggest that smokers show biased attentional orientation to smoking-related and aversive cues.     

Specificity of learning through memory retrieval practice: The case of addition and subtraction

The identical elements (IE) model (Rickard, Healy, & Bourne, Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32:734–748, 1994) of fact representation predicts that, in both verbal and numerical domains, performance gains with retrieval practice on multielement items will be specific to the practiced stimulus–response combinations, failing to transfer even to altered stimulus–response mappings of practiced items. In the case of arithmetic, the model predicts no transfer across either complementary operations (e.g., 4 × 7 to 28 / 4) or complementary division or subtraction problems (e.g., 28 / 4 to 28 / 7). Although that model has successfully described transfer effects in the domains of multiplication–division and episodic cued recall, it is challenged by a recent demonstration of positive cross-operation transfer for addition and subtraction (Campbell & Agnew, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16:938–944, 2009). We report results of a new addition–subtraction transfer experiment, the design of which closely matched that of a prior multiplication–division experiment that supported the model. The transfer results were consistent with the IE model. A two-component model of memory retrieval practice effects is proposed to account for the discrepant experimental results for addition and subtraction and to guide future work.