Literature DB >> 22673857

Dissociating location-specific inhibition and attention shifts: evidence against the disengagement account of contingent capture.

Brian A Anderson1, Charles L Folk.   

Abstract

The study of attentional capture has provided a rich context for assessing the relative influence of top-down and bottom-up factors in visual perception. Some have argued that attentional capture by a salient, irrelevant stimulus is contingent on top-down attentional set (e.g., Folk, Remington, & Johnston, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18:1030-1044, 1992). Others, however, have argued that capture is driven entirely by bottom-up salience and that top-down factors influence the postallocation speed of disengagement from the irrelevant stimulus (e.g., Theeuwes, Acta Psychologica 135:77-99, 2010a). In support of this speed-of-disengagement hypothesis, recent findings from the modified spatial-cuing paradigm show that cues carrying a no-go target property produce reverse, or negative, cuing effects, consistent with inhibition of the cue location from which attention has been very quickly disengaged (Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 326-341, 2010). Across six experiments, we show that this inhibitory process can be dissociated from shifts of spatial attention and is, thus, not a reliable marker of capture. We conclude that the data are inconsistent with the predictions of the disengagement hypothesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22673857     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0325-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  12 in total

1.  Mechanisms of habitual approach: Failure to suppress irrelevant responses evoked by previously reward-associated stimuli.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson; Charles L Folk; Rebecca Garrison; Leeland Rogers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-04-07

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

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

Review 3.  A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  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

5.  Direct Evidence for Active Suppression of Salient-but-Irrelevant Sensory Inputs.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Carly J Leonard; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2015-09-29

6.  The problem of latent attentional capture: Easy visual search conceals capture by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Eric Ruthruff; Mei-Ching Lien
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Neural mechanisms of goal-contingent task disengagement: Response-irrelevant stimuli activate the default mode network.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson; Charles L Folk; Susan M Courtney
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 8.  The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  Reward predictions bias attentional selection.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson; Patryk A Laurent; Steven Yantis
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Socially anxious individuals with low working memory capacity could not inhibit the goal-irrelevant information.

Authors:  Jun Moriya; Yoshinori Sugiura
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.