Combining attention: a novel way of conceptualizing the links between attention, sensory processing, and behavior

Ristic, Jelena; Landry, Mathieu

doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0737-9

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result extends recent discussions concerning the importance of a cue's selection history in spatial orienting (Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012;Ristic & Landry, 2015) and highlights the idea that the human attention system is sensitive to contextual, motivational, and learning factors. Note that because these theoretical accounts argue that attention is recruited differentially as a function of the incoming sensory information, it is reasonable to expect that other types of attentional cues that have traditionally been used to elicit and measure attention within a cuing task (e.g., peripheral onsets, nondirectional symbols) may affect attention in yet a different manner depending on their typical usage in life, prior selection history, and/or type of required attentional control.…”

Section: Sensory-specific Attentionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Instead, the measure of attention is contaminated by the concurrent processes of tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation as well as by their interactions. We have shown here that the nature of those interactions depends on the characteristics of the attentional cue and the particular task settings, while existing data also indicate that those interactions may also differ as a function of the required response (e.g., target discrimination vs. target detection; Gabay & Henik, 2008, 2010Hayward & Ristic, 2013a;Ristic & Landry, 2015). Systematic investigations are needed to assess the contributions of tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation and their interactions to the measures of spatial orienting and the foreperiod effect elicited by the classic cuing task.…”

Section: Why No Dissociations Until Nowmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Recent data indicate similar outcomes for directional symbols like arrows. Specifically, these studies show that the attentional effects elicited by symbolic arrows reflect automated symbolic attention, a type of attentional control that develops with overlearning the contingencies that exist between common symbols and typical responses Ristic & Landry, 2015;Ristic, Landry, & Kingstone, 2012).…”

Section: Orienting To Social and Nonsocial Cuesmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automated symbolic orienting is not modulated by explicit temporal attention

Hayward

Ristic

2016

Acta Psychologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 cuespecific 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.

show abstract

Section: Sensory-specific Attentionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Why No Dissociations Until Nowmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Orienting To Social and Nonsocial Cuesmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automated symbolic orienting is not modulated by explicit temporal attention

Hayward

Ristic

2016

Acta Psychologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may be that these attentional biases are based on a mixture of exogenous and endogenous processes. These combined effects lend themselves better to recent theorizing by Ristic and Landry (2015) and Goodhew, Kendall, Ferber, and Pratt (2014), who have produced experimental results that imply that endogenous and exogenous controls of attention interact flexibly and are engaged jointly by a single behaviorally relevant cue, resulting in an additive effect that leads to increased sensory processing of attended targets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Strategic top-down control versus attentional bias by previous reward history

Lynn

Shin

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rewards modify performance so that attentional priority is given to stimuli associated with a higher probability of reward. A stimulus associated with reward attracts attention even when it is no longer relevant. In this study, we explored whether or not strategic top-down control can be employed to overcome the attentional bias from a recent reward-stimulus association. Four groups of 12 participants completed a spatial-cueing task involving two phases, in which the cue associated with the target location changed from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Attentional-bias effects toward a previously rewarded cue were demonstrated when the rewarded cue from Phase 1 interfered with the orienting toward a nonrewarded but valid cue in Phase 2. Associating the Phase 2 cue with a higher reward than had been used in Phase 1 resulted in a rapid orientation of attention to the new cue. These findings suggest that pathologies characterized by maladaptive attentional biases (e.g., addiction) may be counteracted by treatments that manipulate motivation by enhancing the subjective relevance of rewards that are less harmful.

show abstract

“…High trait anxiety is associated with high trait sensory sensitivity (Engel-Yeger and Dunn, 2011b), and central sensitisation, including those with NSCLBP (Franklin, 2014). A common link between anxiety and sensory sensitivity is the low threshold of sensitivity to stimuli (Ristic and Landry, 2015). Those with anxiety and high sensory sensitivity exhibit M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 physiological differences involving impaired inhibitory control mechanisms and impaired cognitive function (Ansari and Derakshan, 2011b), similar to people with central sensitisation (Latremoliere and Woolf, 2009;Nijs et al, 2010;Berryman et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trait anxiety and sensory processing profile characteristics in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and central sensitisation - A pilot observational study

Clark

Yeowell

Goodwin

2018

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:People with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) and central sensitisation (CS) exhibit sensory processing alterations, somatosensory hypersensitivity and differences in the brain's emotional networks. The concept that CS relates to pre-morbid trait sensory processing and anxiety characteristics is unknown.The aims of this pilot observational study were to test concept plausibility in a NSCLBP population with central sensitisation by investigating: 1) the range of Central Sensitisation Inventory scores, to determine the extent of symptoms of central sensitisation, 2) whether there are identifiable patient characteristics of trait anxiety and trait sensory profile differences; and 3) whether potential relationships exist between trait anxiety, trait sensory profiles and the extent of symptoms of central sensitisation. Methods: People with NSCLBP and CS were recruited from physiotherapy outpatient clinics in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Outcomes included the Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI), Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile and the State/Trait Anxiety Inventory (trait section) with the Marlow Crown Sociable Desirability Scale. Descriptive and non-parametric tests for correlation were used to analyse the data, p=<0.05. Results: Of the 21 people recruited, 16 (76.2%) had CSI scores ≥40 in association with 1) an abnormally high prevalence of extreme scores of a) high trait Sensory Sensitive, Sensation Avoiding and Low Registration sensory profiles and b) low trait Sensation Seeking profile, 2) high trait anxiety sub-types and 3) minimal low trait anxiety. Moderate correlations were identified between trait sensory profiles and 1) CS pain (Sensory Sensitive R= 0.57, p<0.01, M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 CI= 0.07 to 0.88, p<0.01, Sensation Seeking R= -0.47, p<.05, CI= -0.72 to -0.02) and 2) trait anxiety (Sensory sensitive: R=0.65, p<.01, CI= 0.27 to 0.91) and Low Registration (R=.49, p<.05, CI= 0.03 to 0.84). The CSI scores moderately correlated with trait anxiety (R= 0.63, p<0.01, CI= 0.22 to 0.86). Conclusion:These results provide concept plausibility that the extent of CS pain in people with NSCLBP might be associated with pre-morbid trait anxiety sub-types and abnormal trait sensory processing profiles. A larger study to confirm the findings is warranted.All participants satisfying the inclusion criteria received a participant information sheet from their clinician. Consent was obtained at a subsequent visit by the same clinician. Participants

show abstract

Combining attention: a novel way of conceptualizing the links between attention, sensory processing, and behavior

Cited by 21 publications

References 31 publications

Automated symbolic orienting is not modulated by explicit temporal attention

Automated symbolic orienting is not modulated by explicit temporal attention

Strategic top-down control versus attentional bias by previous reward history

Trait anxiety and sensory processing profile characteristics in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and central sensitisation - A pilot observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About