Literature DB >> 17469972

Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm.

María Jesús Funes1, Juan Lupiáñez, Bruce Milliken.   

Abstract

The present experiments tested whether endogenous and exogenous cues produce separate effects on target processing. In Experiment 1, participants discriminated whether an arrow presented left or right of fixation pointed to the left or right. For 1 group, the arrow was preceded by a peripheral noninformative cue. For the other group, the arrow was preceded by a central, symbolic, informative cue. The 2 types of cues modulated the spatial Stroop effect in opposite ways, with endogenous cues producing larger spatial Stroop effects for valid trials and exogenous cues producing smaller spatial Stroop effects for valid trials. In Experiments 2A and 2B, the influence of peripheral noninformative and peripheral informative cues on the spatial Stroop effect was directly compared. The spatial Stroop effect was smaller for valid than for invalid trials for both types of cues. These results point to a distinction between the influence of central and peripheral attentional cues on performance and are not consistent with a unitary view of endogenous and exogenous attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17469972     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  14 in total

1.  Comparing intramodal and crossmodal cuing in the endogenous orienting of spatial attention.

Authors:  Ana B Chica; Daniel Sanabria; Juan Lupiáñez; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects.

Authors:  Robert W Proctor; Iring Koch; Kim-Phuong L Vu; Motonori Yamaguchi
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-07

3.  Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues.

Authors:  Chunming Luo; Juan Lupiáñez; Xiaolan Fu; Xuchu Weng
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-08-20

4.  Contingent capture and inhibition of return: a comparison of mechanisms.

Authors:  William Prinzmetal; Jordan A Taylor; Loretta Barry Myers; Jacqueline Nguyen-Espino
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  How different location modes influence responses in a Simon-like task.

Authors:  Chunming Luo; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-09-27

6.  Arrows don't look at you: Qualitatively different attentional mechanisms triggered by gaze and arrows.

Authors:  Andrea Marotta; Rafael Román-Caballero; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

7.  Attentional influences on memory formation: A tale of a not-so-simple story.

Authors:  J Ortiz-Tudela; B Milliken; L Jiménez; J Lupiáñez
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

8.  Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention.

Authors:  Jie Sui; Chang Hong Liu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-04

9.  Double dissociation between action-driven and perception-driven conflict resolution invoking anterior versus posterior brain systems.

Authors:  Tilman Schulte; Eva M Müller-Oehring; Shara Vinco; Fumiko Hoeft; Adolf Pfefferbaum; Edith V Sullivan
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Repeated Measurement of the Components of Attention of Older Adults using the Two Versions of the Attention Network Test: Stability, Isolability, Robustness, and Reliability.

Authors:  Yoko Ishigami; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 5.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.