Literature DB >> 21814835

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

William Prinzmetal1, Jordan A Taylor, Loretta Barry Myers, Jacqueline Nguyen-Espino.   

Abstract

We investigated the cause(s) of two effects associated with involuntary attention in the spatial cueing task: contingent capture and inhibition of return (IOR). Previously, we found that there were two mechanisms of involuntary attention in this task: (1) a (serial) search mechanism that predicts a larger cueing effect in reaction time with more display locations and (2) a decision (threshold) mechanism that predicts a smaller cueing effect with more display locations (Prinzmetal et al. 2010). In the present study, contingent capture and IOR had completely different patterns of results when we manipulated the number of display locations and the presence of distractors. Contingent capture was best described by a search model, whereas the inhibition of return was best described by a decision model. Furthermore, we fit a linear ballistic accumulator model to the results and IOR was accounted for by a change of threshold, whereas the results from contingent capture experiments could not be fit with a change of threshold and were better fit by a search model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21814835     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2805-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  35 in total

1.  Inhibition of return and attentional control settings.

Authors:  B S Gibson; J Amelio
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-04

2.  The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return.

Authors:  J Ivanoff; R M Klein
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-06

3.  Top-down contingencies in peripheral cuing: The roles of color and location.

Authors:  Ulrich Ansorge; Manfred Heumann
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-02

5.  Attention orienting and the time course of perceptual decisions: response time distributions with masked and unmasked displays.

Authors:  Philip L Smith; Roger Ratcliff; Bradley J Wolfgang
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention.

Authors:  Andrea Berger; Avishai Henik; Robert Rafal
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2005-05

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

Authors:  María Jesús Funes; Juan Lupiáñez; Bruce Milliken
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Why does the effect of short-SOA exogenous cuing on simple RT depend on the number of display locations?

Authors:  J Toby Mordkoff; Rose Halterman; Peggy Chen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-08

9.  Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later.

Authors:  J Lupiáñez; E G Milán; F J Tornay; E Madrid; P Tudela
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1997-11

10.  The phenomenology of endogenous orienting.

Authors:  Paolo Bartolomeo; Caroline Decaix; Eric Siéroff
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2006-03-09
View more
  5 in total

1.  A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects.

Authors:  Christian Büsel; Martin Voracek; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-08-31

2.  Inhibition of return is no hallmark of exogenous capture by unconscious cues.

Authors:  Isabella Fuchs; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Attentional capture and inhibition of saccades after irrelevant and relevant cues.

Authors:  Heinz-Werner Priess; Nils Heise; Florian Fischmeister; Sabine Born; Herbert Bauer; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 1.909

4.  Social Beliefs and Visual Attention: How the Social Relevance of a Cue Influences Spatial Orienting.

Authors:  Matthias S Gobel; Miles R A Tufft; Daniel C Richardson
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-11-02

5.  Effects of a pretarget distractor on saccade reaction times across space and time in monkeys and humans.

Authors:  Aarlenne Z Khan; Douglas P Munoz; Naomi Takahashi; Gunnar Blohm; Robert M McPeek
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.