The present meta-analyses investigated the widely used contingent-capture protocol. Contingent-capture theory postulates that only top-down matching stimuli capture attention. Evidence comes from the contingent-capture protocol, in which participants search for a predefined target stimulus preceded by a spatial cue. The cue is typically uninformative of the target's position but either presented at target position (valid condition) or away from the target (invalid condition). The common finding is that seemingly only top-down matching cues capture attention as shown by a selective cueing effect (faster responses in valid than invalid conditions) for cues with a feature similar to the searched-for target only, but not for cues without target-similar feature. The origin of this "contingent-capture effect" is, however, debated. One alternative explanation is that intertrial priming-the priming of attention capture by the cue in a given trial by attending to a feature-similar target in the preceding trial-mediates the contingent-capture effect. Alternatively, the rapid-disengagement account argues that all salient stimuli capture attention initially, but that the disengagement from non-matching cues is rapid. The present meta-analyses shed light on this debate by (a) identifying moderators of the size of reported contingent-capture effects (64 experiments) and (b) analyzing pure (blocked) versus mixed presentation of different targets as well as summarizing results of published intertrial priming studies (12 experiments) in the contingent-capture protocol. We found target-singleton versus non-singleton status and pure versus mixed presentation of different targets to be reliable moderators. Furthermore, results indicated the presence of publication bias. Otherwise, the contingent-capture theory was supported, but we discuss additional factors that must be taken into account for a full account of the results.
We investigated the origin of attention capture in the contingent-capture protocol during a search for two colors. When searching for the target color, cues similar to the target capture attention but cues dissimilar to the target do not capture attention. The results are typically explained by top-down contingent capture, a form of proactive control where participants set up attentional control settings (ACSs) for the target and cues matching the ACSs capture attention. However, based on recent research, we hypothesized that the situation could be more complicated during search for several features. Here, reactive control in the form of (cue) colorelicited selection of one of several separate pre-activated ACSs, one for each single searched-for feature, could contribute to performance. With the help of mixing and switch costs, we demonstrated that participants searched for two colors by separate preactivated ACSs, and a closer inspection of the capture effects of the cues confirmed that reactive control contributed to ACS selection.
Abstract. In spatial cueing, cues presented at target position (valid condition) can capture visual attention and facilitate responses to the target relative to cues presented away from target position (invalid condition). If cues and targets carry different features, the necessary updating of the object representation from the cue to the target display sometimes counteracts and even reverses facilitation in valid conditions, resulting in an inverted validity effect. Previous studies reached partly divergent conclusions regarding the conditions under which object-file updating occurs, and little is known about the exact nature of the processes involved. Object-file updating has so far been investigated by manipulating cue–target similarities in task-relevant target features, but other features that change between the cue and target displays might also contribute to object-file updating. This study examined the conditions under which object-file updating could counteract validity effects by systematically varying task-relevant (color), response-relevant (identity), and response-irrelevant (orientation) features between cue and target displays. The results illustrate that object-file updating is largely restricted to task-relevant features. In addition, the difficulty of the search task affects the degree to which object-file updating costs interact with spatial cueing.
When it comes to measuring cognitive control and inhibition, the antisaccade paradigm is a popular task to apply. Usually, simple, perceptually and affectively neutral stimuli, e.g. white circles, are used. Recently, researchers also employed a version of the paradigm displaying emotional faces. Differences in cognitive processing due to stimulus size and emotional valence have not been investigated yet. Thus, in the present study, we applied both versions of the antisaccade paradigm in a healthy sample. In addition, we used scrambled faces to control for stimulus size and emotional valence. We hypothesised slower reaction times and higher error rates for emotional face stimuli compared to circular and scrambled ones as well as significant differences between individual emotions. In contrast to our hypotheses, results showed faster reaction times fewer errors for emotional faces compared to circular and scrambled stimuli. Furthermore, ANOVA models showed no meaningful differences between different emotions. Our study shows specific patterns in inhibitory control due to stimulus size and valence in an antisaccade eye-tracking task.
Attentionhere, the selection of visual informationis necessary for the control of skills and procedures. In amendment of the principles discussed by Luck et al. [
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.