Negative priming for spatial locations: Identity mismatching, not distractor inhibition.

Abstract

Negative priming (NP) is commonly thought to occur because distractor inhibition is necessary for target selection (the distractor inhibition hypothesis). Contrary to this account, the selection of a target in the preceding trial is shown to be neither necessary (Experiment 1) nor sufficient (Experiments 2 and 3) for NP in a target localization task modeled after S.P. Tipper, J.C. Brehaut, and J. Driver (1990). Experiments 4 and 5 provide further evidence against the distractor inhibition hypothesis and support an alternative mismatching account: NP in the spatial selection task apparently results from a change in the symbol bound to a given location (D. Kahneman, A. M. Treisman, & B. J. Gibbs, 1992), rather than a change in the status of that location from distractor to target (S. P. Tipper, J. C. Brehaut, & J. Driver, 1990).

Inhibition of action, thought, and emotion: A selective neurobiological review

“…This hypothesis thus explains negative priming without postulating an inhibitory mechanism. Minas and Park describe the feature mismatch account developed by Park and Kanwisher (1994), which is based on the fact that in many negative priming paradigms a perceptual characteristic serves to distinguish targets from distractors (e.g., distracting words are printed in red, while target words are printed in white). The feature mismatch account proposes that stimuli are encoded along with their perceptual characteristics, such that when a former distractor is presented as a target, there is conflict between the old perceptual features that are retrieved from memory (e.g., word was printed in red) and the new perceptual features being presented (e.g., word is now printed in white).…”

Distractor inhibition is more effective at a central than at a peripheral location

“…For example, probe detection is slower when the probe appears at a location previously occupied by a distractor rather than at a blank location between distractors (Cepeda, Cave, Bichot, & Kim, 1998). Reaction time (RT) is also longer when a target was a distractor on a preceding trial than when it had not previously appeared (see Tipper, 2001, for a review; but also see Milliken, Joordens, Merikle, & Seiffert, 1998;Neill, Valdes, Terry, & Gorfein, 1992;and Park & Kanwisher, 1994, for noninhibition interpretations). This negative priming effect has been found with different types of stimuli in a variety of paradigms (e.g., DeSchepper & Treisman, 1996;Tipper & Driver, 1988).…”

Threat processing in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Evidence from a modified negative priming task

“…However, disagreements over interpretation of the finding persist (e.g., Frings & Wentura, 2006;MacLeod, Chiappe, & Fox, 2002;Tipper, 2001). Theories attempting to explain NP include: selective inhibition (e.g., Houghton & Tipper, 1994); feature mismatch (Lowe, 1979;Milliken, Tipper, & Weaver, 1994;Park & Kanwisher;; episodic retrieval Neill, Valdes, Terry, & Gorfein, 1992;Rothermund, Wentura, & De Houwer, 2005); and temporal discrimination (Milliken, Joordens, Merikle, & Seiffert, 1998). The selective inhibition and episodic retrieval accounts have received the most support.…”