Literature DB >> 25805202

Exposing the cuing task: the case of gaze and arrow cues.

Dana A Hayward1, Jelena Ristic.   

Abstract

The prevailing theoretical accounts of social cognitive processes propose that attention is preferentially engaged by social information. However, empirical investigations report virtually indistinguishable attention effects for social (e.g., gaze) and nonsocial (e.g., arrow) stimuli when a cuing task is used. Here, we show that this discrepancy between theory and data reflects a difference in how the extraneous processes induced by the cuing task's parameters (i.e., tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation) modulate cue-specific attentional effects. Overall, we found that tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation interacted within the cuing task, resulting in underadditive magnitudes of spatial orienting and superadditive magnitudes of the foreperiod effect. However, those interactions differentially affected social and nonsocial attention. While typical rapid social orienting was resilient to changing task parameters, sustained social orienting was eliminated only when the contribution of both extraneous processes was reduced. In contrast, orienting elicited by nonsocial arrows grew in magnitude with the reduction of voluntary temporal preparation and was delayed by the joint reduction of tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation. Together, these data indicate that cue-specific attention effects are masked by task dynamics of the cuing paradigm and highlight a pivotal role of the cuing task parameters in both the measurement and the theoretical attribution of spatial attention effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25805202     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-015-0877-6

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


  14 in total

1.  Gaze following in multiagent contexts: Evidence for a quorum-like principle.

Authors:  Francesca Capozzi; Andrew P Bayliss; Jelena Ristic
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

2.  Face stimulus eliminates antisaccade-cost: gaze following is a different kind of arrow.

Authors:  Liran Zeligman; Ari Z Zivotofsky
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The impact of temporal contingencies between cue and target onset on spatial attentional capture by subliminal onset cues.

Authors:  Tobias Schoeberl; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-05-15

4.  Changes in Tonic Alertness but Not Voluntary Temporal Preparation Modulate the Attention Elicited by Task-Relevant Gaze and Arrow Cues.

Authors:  Dana A Hayward; Jelena Ristic
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-07

5.  Contextually-Based Social Attention Diverges across Covert and Overt Measures.

Authors:  Effie J Pereira; Elina Birmingham; Jelena Ristic
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-10

6.  Attention Combines Similarly in Covert and Overt Conditions.

Authors:  Christopher D Blair; Jelena Ristic
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-04-25

7.  If not When, then Where? Ignoring Temporal Information Eliminates Reflexive but not Volitional Spatial Orienting.

Authors:  Kaitlin E W Laidlaw; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-06

8.  Altered social cognition in a community sample of women with disordered eating behaviours: a multi-method approach.

Authors:  Devon S Heath; Nimrit Jhinjar; Dana A Hayward
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Conflict Tasks of Different Types Divergently Affect the Attentional Processing of Gaze and Arrow.

Authors:  Lingxia Fan; Huan Yu; Xuemin Zhang; Qing Feng; Mengdan Sun; Mengsi Xu
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2018-05-07

10.  Where Is Your Attention? Assessing Individual Instances of Covert Attentional Orienting in Response to Gaze and Arrow Cues.

Authors:  Christopher D Blair; Francesca Capozzi; Jelena Ristic
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2017-07-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.