Inhibitory mechanisms of attention: Locus, stability, and relationship with distractor interference effects

Abstract

This paper examines three properties of attentional inhibition mechanisms. First, previous research has suggested that the inhibitory mechanism of selective attention has a central locus between perception and action. We attempt to confirm the locus of this inhibition. Second, the processing of an unattended stimulus has been observed via the effects of the stimulus on a concurrent target (interference), and on a subsequent target (negative priming). The former effect demonstrates that distractors interfere with the processing of the target, and the latter negative priming effect implies that distractors are inhibited during selection. We demonstrate that these two measures of unattended processing can be dissociated. Third, we reveal that inhibition appears to be a stable mechanism of selection, in that effects do not decline after a large number of experimental trials.

Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review

“…Results with the original target-localization task suggest that the pattern of results observed is very similar to those observed in the traditional filtering, or select-where respond-what, tasks (e.g., Neill, Valdes, Terry, & Gorfein, 1992;Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, et al, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, Kirkpatrick, & Lewis, 1991). This similarity across the different tasks is somewhat surprising, since there is neurophysiological evidence to suggest that object identity and object location are processed by separate cortical mechanisms (Felleman & van Essen, 1991;Ungerleider & Mishkin, 1982).…”

“…The dominant view is that NP is a reflection of inhibitory mechanisms in visual selective attention (e.g., Allport et al, 1985;Fox, 1994b;Milliken, Tipper, & Weaver, 1994;Moore, 1994;Neill, 1977Neill, , 1979Neill, , 1989Neill & Westberry, 1987;Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991Tipper, 1985;Tipper & Cranston, 1985;Tipper, Lortie, & Baylis, 1992;Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, Brehaut, & Bastedo, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, & Houghton, 1994;Tipper, Weaver, Kirkpatrick, & Lewis, 1991;Yee, 1991). This is the selective inhibition account.…”

Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty

“…In contrast, individuals with lowschizotypal symptoms show less interference, but more negative priming from irrelevant distractors. However, little evidence for this pattern of results has been found in within-subjects designs; it does not seem to be the case that conditions that induce more negative priming also produce less interference, or vice versa, within subjects (e.g., Beech, Agar, & Baylis, 1989;Fox, in press, 1994a;Tipper, Weaver, Kirkpatrick, & Lewis, 1991).…”

“…In within-subjects studies, there is either a positive relation (Neill & Lissner, 1988;Neill et aI., 1992) or no relation Driver & Tipper, 1989;Fox, in press, 1994a;Tipper et a!., 1991). A primary aim of the present study was to attempt to clarify the relation between interference and negative priming in a standard selective attention task.…”

Dissociating object- and response-based components of negative priming through effects of practice

“…The target is selected on the basis of a particular (nonspatial) attribute (e.g., identity), and the task is to determine its location (usually one of four well-marked locations) by moving a joystick in the direction of the target or pressing a key that is spatially compatible with the location. If, following a prime trial, the target object next appears in the location previously occupied by the distractor, RTs are slowed, relative to those to targets appearing at a previously empty location (Tipper, Brehaut, & Driver, 1990;Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, Brehaut, & Bastedo, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, Kirkpatrick, & Lewis, 1991).…”