Literature DB >> 28795835

Explicit goal-driven attention, unlike implicitly learned attention, spreads to secondary tasks.

Douglas A Addleman1, Jinyi Tao1, Roger W Remington1, Yuhong V Jiang1.   

Abstract

To what degree does spatial attention for one task spread to all stimuli in the attended region, regardless of task relevance? Most models imply that spatial attention acts through a unitary priority map in a task-general manner. We show that implicit learning, unlike endogenous spatial cuing, can bias spatial attention within one task without biasing attention to a spatially overlapping secondary task. Participants completed a visual search task superimposed on a background containing scenes, which they were told to encode for a later memory task. Experiments 1 and 2 used explicit instructions to bias spatial attention to one region for visual search; Experiment 3 used location probability cuing to implicitly bias spatial attention. In location probability cuing, a target appeared in one region more than others despite participants not being told of this. In all experiments, search performance was better in the cued region than in uncued regions. However, scene memory was better in the cued region only following endogenous guidance, not after implicit biasing of attention. These data support a dual-system view of top-down attention that dissociates goal-driven and implicitly learned attention. Goal-driven attention is task general, amplifying processing of a cued region across tasks, whereas implicit statistical learning is task-specific. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28795835      PMCID: PMC5809231          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000457

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


  41 in total

1.  The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control.

Authors:  J B Hopfinger; M H Buonocore; G R Mangun
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory.

Authors:  E Awh; J Jonides
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  The effects of concurrent task interference on category learning: evidence for multiple category learning systems.

Authors:  E M Waldron; F G Ashby
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-03

4.  Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention.

Authors:  Joel Lachter; Kenneth I Forster; Eric Ruthruff
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-10

6.  Time to Guide: Evidence for Delayed Attentional Guidance in Contextual Cueing.

Authors:  Melina A Kunar; Stephen J Flusberg; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2008

7.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection.

Authors:  J Theeuwes
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Visual search and location probability learning from variable perspectives.

Authors:  Yuhong V Jiang; Khena M Swallow; Christian G Capistrano
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 10.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy.

Authors:  Edward Awh; Artem V Belopolsky; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 20.229

View more
  5 in total

1.  Habit-like attentional bias is unlike goal-driven attentional bias against spatial updating.

Authors:  Injae Hong; Min-Shik Kim
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-06-17

2.  Independence of implicitly guided attention from goal-driven oculomotor control.

Authors:  Chen Chen; Vanessa G Lee
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 2.157

3.  Specificity and persistence of statistical learning in distractor suppression.

Authors:  Mark K Britton; Brian A Anderson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Spontaneous Task Structure Formation Results in a Cost to Incidental Memory of Task Stimuli.

Authors:  Christina Bejjani; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-12-17

5.  Is probabilistic cuing of visual search an inflexible attentional habit? A meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Tamara Giménez-Fernández; David Luque; David R Shanks; Miguel A Vadillo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-11-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.