Recently inhibited responses are avoided for both masked and nonmasked primes in a spatial negative priming task

Abstract

Responding to the location of a target is delayed when the target arises at a position previously occupied by a distractor (ignored-repetition trial), relative to when it occurs at a formerly unoccupied location (control trial) [i.e., the spatial negative priming (SNP) effect]. Speculation has held that recently inhibited (distractor) responses resist future execution (i.e., execution resistance [ER]), and thus cause SNP. Evidence for ER has been reported for identity-based tasks using masked prime distractor events. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential impact of ER on response selection in an SNP task for both nonmasked (traditional) and masked primes. We employed a modified SNP task that included nonmasked and masked target-only and distractor-only visual primes (first trial), along with forced choice and free choice probes (second trial). On free choice trials, a selection bias against the prime-distractor-assigned response was evident (same-hand competition, for both nonmasked and masked primes). This selection avoidance was held to reflect ER operating with inhibited prime distractor responses. Further, inhibitory aftereffect patterns were the same for nonmasked and masked distractor primes, and masking target primes transformed a positive to a negative aftereffect, as predicted by the self-inhibition model of mask function set out by Schlaghecken and Eimer (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463-468, 2004).

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

“…Also bear in mind that the Christie and Klein (2001) data did not rule out the involvement of response inhibition (Fitzgeorge et al, 2011) as a contributor to their SNP effects. So, on this account as well, their data do not unequivocally point to a common mechanism for IOR and SNP-central.…”

“…Participants respond by using the manual output assigned to the target-occupied location, while attempting to ignore any distractor event that might be present. Most commonly (but see Fitzgeorge, Buckolz, & Khan, 2011), an SNP effect is registered when reaction time is significantly longer when the probe target arises at a location previously occupied by a distractor event (i.e., ignored-repetition trial) than when it occurs at a formerly unused location (control trial) [e.g., Neill, Terry, & Valdes, 1994].…”

“…To be clear about our intentions here, we need to acknowledge that past SNP procedures have used either "peripheral" (i.e., SNP-peripheral: Chao, 2009;Christie & Klein, 2001;Tipper, Brehaut, & Driver, 1990) or "central" (i.e., SNP-central: e.g., Buckolz et al, 2008;Fitzgeorge et al, 2011;Guy, Buckolz, & Fitzgeorge, 2007;Guy, Buckolz, & Khan, 2006;Guy, Buckolz, & Pratt, 2004;Neill et al, 1994) event locations. Central locations subtend a visual angle of about 2.5˚ or less so that delivered events fall wholly or partially within the fovea area of the retina, while peripheral locations naturally extend outside this area (i.e., parafoveally).…”

“…Our preferred explanation of the SNP-central inhibitory aftereffects is one mostly set out by Fitzgeorge et al (2011). Briefly, they proposed that the appearance of the prime-trial distractor sets in motion automatic processing that includes the recognition of the prime distractor object Fitzgeorge, 2009) and its location, along with the activation (A) and subsequent inhibition (I) of the distractor location's assigned response.…”

“…Overcoming ER takes time, causing RT(IR) to be delayed, thereby producing the SNP effect. Incidentally, the existence of a distractor-response ER feature is supported by the fact that under free choice conditions, subjects showed an aversion to choosing the prime distractor response in favour of the control response (Edgar, 2011;Fitzgeorge et al, 2011). In short, SNP-central is caused by distractor-response inhibition.…”