Resolving the controversy of the proportion validity effect: Volitional attention is not required, but may have an effect

Lanthier, Sophie N.; Wu, David W.–L.; Chapman, Craig S.; Kingstone, Alan

doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0956-8

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the current explicit cues, we observe RTs that are comparable across spatial certainty conditions for valid cues, whereas RTs on invalid trials increase as spatial certainty decreases. We inspected the previous literature and observed that this is a consistent finding across other studies that varied the probabilities of explicit spatial cues in comparable tasks (Lanthier et al, 2015;Vossel et al, 2006) , suggesting that this is a replicable phenomenon, rather than the consequence of a ceiling effect or something similar. In contrast, Stankevich and Geng (2014) observed the opposite; RTs decreased as target location became more likely (analogous to valid trials) but remained invariant when directed towards increasingly less likely (invalid) locations.…”

supporting

confidence: 72%

“…However, our interest here is how endogenous (learned) spatial associations interact with other learned associations, specifically value associations to control visual selection. Strong evidence that spatial cueing effects (both endogenously and exogenously driven) depend on learning is that they scale with the reliability of the cue (Lanthier et al, 2015;Vossel et al, 2006Vossel et al, , 2015 , being stronger when cues are more predictive and weaker when predictability is low. Indeed, cueing effects appear to be a linear function of the certainty gained (in bits of information) by a spatial cue (Prinzmetal et al, 2015) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Garner

Bowman

Raymond

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the brain combine information predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) with information predictive of where task relevant stimuli may occur (spatial certainty)? Human behavioural evidence indicates that these two predictions may be combined additively to bias visual selection (additive hypothesis), whereas neuroeconomic studies posit that they may be multiplicatively combined (expected value hypothesis). We sought to adjudicate between these two alternatives. Participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent letter target if it appeared in that placeholder. Then, prior to the target's presentation, an endogenous spatial cue was presented indicating the target's more likely location. Spatial cues were parametrically manipulated with regard to the information gained (in bits). Across two experiments, performance was better for targets appearing in high versus low value placeholders and better when targets appeared in validly cued locations. Interestingly, as shown with a Bayesian model selection approach these effects did not interact, clearly supporting the additive hypothesis. Even when conditions were adjusted to reduce the optimality of an additive operation, support for it remained. These findings refute recent theories that expected value computations are the singular mechanism driving the deployment of endogenous spatial attention. Instead, incentive value and spatial certainty seem to act independently to influence visual selection.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Garner

Bowman

Raymond

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also possible that a form of statistical learning gave rise to the attentionalcapture effects by color in Experiment 3 (cf. Lanthier et al, 2015). In any case, the magnitude of the validity effect of the task-irrelevant target colors was clearly smaller than the effects with cues of a task-relevant color in Experiments 1 and 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Maybe the color-based cueing effect in Experiment 3 reflected an implicit form of learning of color-target associations that is different from priming and more akin to statistical learning (cf. Lanthier, Wu, Chapman, & Kingstone, 2015). Such implicit attentional guidance might not lead to the incorporation of the target-associated feature into the top-down set of explicitly instructed relevant target features.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing a priming account of the contingent-capture effect

Schoeberl

Goller

Ansorge

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the contingent-capture protocol, singleton cues that have a target's searched-for feature capture attention, but cues that do not have the target's searched-for feature do not, a result labeled the contingent-capture effect. The contingent-capture effect is usually regarded as evidence for the observers' ability to establish search settings for certain nonspatial features in a top-down manner. However, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that selection history is also a powerful mediator of attentional capture. In this vein, it has been suggested that contingent-capture effects could emerge as a result of (intertrial) priming: The idea is that features that have been encountered previously in the target are primed, so that cues that have these features automatically capture attention in a subsequent encounter. Here we tested a strong version of the priming account of the contingent-capture effect. We wanted to know whether cues that had target features would capture attention when the corresponding features were not part of the instructions (i.e., when the corresponding features were task-irrelevant). The results suggested that a strong version of the priming account of contingent capture is not supported. In five experiments, we found little evidence that the contingentcapture effect could be explained by (intertrial) priming of task-irrelevant features alone. These results show that processes beyond priming through task-irrelevant features are critical for contingent-capture effects.

show abstract

“…Our interest here is how endogenous (learned) spatial associations interact with other learned associations, specifically value associations to control visual selection. Strong evidence that spatial cueing effects depend on learning is that they scale with the reliability of the cue (Lanthier et al, 2015;Vossel et al, 2006Vossel et al, , 2015, being stronger when cues are more predictive and weaker when predictability is low. Indeed, cueing effects appear to be a linear function of the certainty gained (in bits of information) by a spatial cue (Prinzmetal et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Garner

Bowman

Raymond

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the brain combine information predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) with information predictive of where task-relevant stimuli may occur (spatial certainty)? Human behavioural evidence indicates that these two predictions may be combined additively to bias visual selection (Additive Hypothesis), whereas neuroeconomic studies posit that they may be multiplicatively combined (Expected Value Hypothesis). We sought to adjudicate between these two alternatives. Participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent letter target if it appeared in that placeholder. Then, prior to the target’s presentation, an endogenous spatial cue was presented indicating the target’s more likely location. Spatial cues were parametrically manipulated with regard to the information gained (in bits). Across two experiments, performance was better for targets appearing in high versus low value placeholders and better when targets appeared in validly cued locations. Interestingly, as shown with a Bayesian model selection approach, these effects did not interact, clearly supporting the Additive Hypothesis. Even when conditions were adjusted to increase the optimality of a multiplicative operation, support for it remained. These findings refute recent theories that expected value computations are the singular mechanism driving the deployment of endogenous spatial attention. Instead, incentive value and spatial certainty seem to act independently to influence visual selection.

show abstract

Resolving the controversy of the proportion validity effect: Volitional attention is not required, but may have an effect

Cited by 10 publications

References 34 publications

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Testing a priming account of the contingent-capture effect

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About