Direct parameter specification of an attention shift: evidence from perceptual latency priming

Abstract

In the direct parameter specification (DPS) mode of sensorimotor control, response parameters can be specified by stimuli that are not consciously perceived [Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung 52 (1990) 207]. DPS is contingent on the current intentions. The invisible stimuli can be processed for the purposes of sensorimotor control only if they match the actual intentions, for example, share task-relevant features. The present experiments explore whether attentional capture by masked abrupt-onset stimuli is mediated via DPS. Participants judged which of two visual targets appeared first. Masked primes preceded one of the targets. The primes were either similar to the targets or not, in shape, or in color. Target-like (task-relevant), but not distractor-like (task-irrelevant), primes facilitated perceptual latencies of targets trailing at their positions. Thus, the latency effects resulted from DPS of an attention shift, rather than from bottom-up capture or from top-down search for dynamic features.

Evidence for split foci of attention in a priming paradigm

“…Perceptual latency priming by a single prime, as assessed in several previous studies (Neumann, Esselmann, & Klotz, 1993;Scharlau, 2002Scharlau, , 2004Scharlau & Ansorge, 2003;Scharlau & Neumann, 2003a, 2003bSteglich & Neumann, 2000), may be in accordance with split attentional foci, but it also accords with several alternative models of the spatial distribution of attention, such as gradient theories (Downing, 1988;Downing & Pinker, 1985;Hikosaka et al, 1993a;Hughes & Zimba, 1985;LaBerge, 1983;LaBerge & Brown, 1989), that suppose that attention is organized in a gradient fashion around the attended location-that is, decreasing with distance from the focus of attention. It also agrees with a spotlight theory of attention (Broadbent, 1982;Posner, 1980;Posner et al, 1980;Shulman, Remington, & McLean, 1979;Tsal, 1983), according to which an area of defined size, possibly of less than 1º of visual angle, is attended to, and with a zoom lens model (B.…”

Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues

“…The current findings unequivocally provide evidence that subliminal attentional capture is completely stimulus-driven. Answering this question is important as previous studies provided evidence that the validity effect of subliminal onset cues depended on the topdown control settings (e.g., Fuchs & Ansorge, 2012b;Scharlau & Ansorge, 2003), whereas others claimed that subliminal abrupt onsets capture attention in a pure stimulusdriven way (McCormick, 1997;Mulckhuse et al, 2007). In particular, past research allowed two types of top-down contingent capture to have a possible effect: (1) participants were searching for a target singleton while the abrupt onset cue also was a singleton (singleton vs. feature search mode cf.…”

A dissociation between selective attention and conscious awareness in the representation of temporal order information

“…However, other authors have argued that attention and awareness are functionally distinct (e.g., Lamme, 2003;Koch & Tsuchiya, 2007). Evidence for the separability of attention and awareness is provided by cases where selective attention to a particular stimulus does not give rise to conscious awareness (e.g., He, Cavanagh, & Intriligator, 1996), cases where masked invisible stimuli attract attention when their features match a currently active task set (e.g., Scharlau & Ansorge, 2003;Ansorge, Kiss, & Eimer, 2009), and cases where conscious object classification can occur in the near absence of attention (e.g., Li, VanRullen, Koch, & Perona, 2002). …”