Can the location negative priming process operate in a proactive manner?

Abstract

The location negative priming (NP) effect refers to the fact that the processing of a current target stimulus (probe trial) is delayed when it appears at a location that has recently contained a distractor event (prime trial), relative to when it occurs at a previously unoccupied position. One view is that the process causing the NP effect involves the inhibition of the internal representation of the prime-distractor event, and that the future processing of target stimuli that involve this event are prolonged because this distractor inhibition is persistent. In this study, we examined the possibility that the NP process (inhibition) could act proactively; specifically asking whether inhibition could be allocated to a location merely predicted to hold a future distractor event. To do this, we cued the probe distractor's location using an otherwise traditional location NP paradigm. No evidence of a proactive NP process was obtained. Probe-trial target latency was the same whether it appeared at the cued distractor location or at a new location, but was delayed when it occupied the prime-distractor location (NP effect). The location NP process is seemingly a reactive one, applying inhibition only when an actual distractor is present, much as past theories have implied.

Prime-trial processing demands and their impact on distractor processing in a spatial negative priming task

“…For the 750 ms probe delay, consistent with prior work (e.g., Buckolz et al, 2006;; Experiment 1), distractor-repeat reactions (RT = 442 ms) matched those produced by the control trials (RT = 446 ms). For the 75 ms probe onset delay, probe target reactions were signiWcantly faster when the probe distractor re-appeared at its prime-trial location (distractor-repetition RT = 447 ms) than when it showed up at a new location (control RT = 475 ms), more so for the distractor-or-target prime.…”

“…The diVerent contexts (prime-trial types) within which prime distractor events were processed in this study did not alter how earlier distractor-occupied locations inXuenced later distractor processing at the same location. Two, the similar latencies seen for the distractor-repeat than for the control trials (e.g., see Buckolz et al, 2006;; but see Christie & Klein, 2001) argues against speculation that one useful function possibly performed by the spatial NP process would be to produce a more expeditious elimination of future distractor events when they show up at the same location on consecutive trials (e.g., Buckolz et al, 2002;Christie & Klein, 2001). Had this been the case, probe target latencies would have been faster on distractor-repeat than on control trials.…”

“…The major issue addressed here evolved from the fact that researchers studying the spatial NP eVect have used three distinct prime-trial types; namely, predictable distractor-only, unpredictable distractor-only (distractor-or-target prime), and, distractor-plus-target (e.g., Buckolz et al, 2002Buckolz et al, , 2006Christie & Klein, 2001;Guy et al, 2004Milliken et al, 2000;Neill et al, 1994), and from the fact that each of these prime-trial types has distinct processing requirements (Table 1). From a narrow perspective, the fundamental question we examined here was whether the stored distractor event emerging from these various prime-trial processing contexts are equivalent in the sense that they would participate in the spatial NP process in the same way (i.e., prime-trial equivalence); that is, produce comparable NP data.…”

“…We will be able to determine, for example, whether the processing of future (probe trial) distractor or target events that re-appear at the same location on successive trials (i.e., distractor-repeat, target-repeat) is altered by the original prime-trial processing context. Furthermore, the relationship between distractor-repeat and target-repeat reactions and their respective control trial latencies will also be of some interest because they relate to existing speculation about the characteristics of the spatial NP process (e.g., Buckolz, Guy, Khan, & Lawrence, 2006;Christie & Klein, 2001).…”

White bear everywhere: Exploring the boundaries of the attentional white bear phenomenon

“…In fact, studies that did not permit the omitting of a cued distractor location from the search array have not shown any indication of inhibition. In Chao (2010), as well as in Buckolz, Guy, Khan, and Lawrence (2006), participants were cued with one of four display locations as the location of the distractor with 67% validity. The target could still appear in any of the four display locations with equal probability.…”