Literature DB >> 18589391

Cueing the location of a distractor: an inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention?

Jaap Munneke1, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Jan Theeuwes.   

Abstract

Presenting an irrelevant distractor increases reaction times to a target. The current study shows that cueing the location of an upcoming 'distractor' can help to reduce the effects the distractor has on target processing. It is hypothesized that this reduction is due to the active inhibition of the cued location. In two experiments in which the location of the distractor was cued in advance, a reduced effect of the distractor on target-processing was observed. Analyses indicated that this effect was most likely caused by inhibition of the distractor location. The present findings suggest that inhibition plays an important role in visual-spatial selection processes and that this inhibitory mechanism can be controlled in a top-down fashion.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18589391     DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  14 in total

1.  Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal.

Authors:  Risa Sawaki; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Implicitly learned suppression of irrelevant spatial locations.

Authors:  Andrew B Leber; Rachael E Gwinn; Yoolim Hong; Ryan J O'Toole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-12

3.  Resolving conflicting views: Gaze and arrow cues do not trigger rapid reflexive shifts of attention.

Authors:  Jessica J Green; Marissa L Gamble; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2013

4.  Evidence for negative feature guidance in visual search is explained by spatial recoding.

Authors:  Valerie M Beck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Immunity to attentional capture at ignored locations.

Authors:  Eric Ruthruff; Nicholas Gaspelin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Strategic Distractor Suppression Improves Selective Control in Human Vision.

Authors:  Wieske van Zoest; Christoph Huber-Huber; Matthew D Weaver; Clayton Hickey
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Preparatory effects of distractor suppression: evidence from visual cortex.

Authors:  Jaap Munneke; Dirk J Heslenfeld; W Martin Usrey; Jan Theeuwes; George R Mangun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Can we shield ourselves from task disturbance by emotion-laden stimulation?

Authors:  Susanne Augst; Thomas Kleinsorge; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.526

9.  Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction.

Authors:  Harriet Goschy; Sarolta Bakos; Hermann J Müller; Michael Zehetleitner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-06

10.  Gaze in Visual Search Is Guided More Efficiently by Positive Cues than by Negative Cues.

Authors:  Günter Kugler; Bernard Marius 't Hart; Stefan Kohlbecher; Wolfgang Einhäuser; Erich Schneider
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.