Seeing while acting: hand movements can modulate attentional capture by motion onset

Abstract

The onset of new motion has been shown to be a very robust cause of attentional capture, generating a processing advantage for the location of motion onset regardless of the observer's concurrent goal. The present study, motivated by the common-coding account of action and perception, examined whether the effect of motion onset on visual attention can be modulated by the observer's mode of action. Specifically, the commoncoding account predicts that preparing an action can render the features that are used in the action plan less available for visual processes. Consistent with this hypothesis, in Experiment 1 the magnitude of attentional capture caused by a single motion onset was reduced when this motion was similar to the observer's response (i.e., along the same axis). Similarly, in Experiment 2 the onset of a responsedifferent motion gained a processing advantage over the response-similar motion onset when the two were presented simultaneously. Since both types of motion were present in every trial, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that response similarity affected visual-attentional processes rather than motor processes. Together, these results suggest that the processes of attentional prioritization caused by motion onset can be modulated by the observer's concurrent action.

The planning and control model (PCM) of motorvisual priming: Reconciling motorvisual impairment and facilitation effects.

“…These effects are often interpreted as being due to a facilitative effect from action preparation on the perception of action compatible stimuli ( Bortoletto, Mattingley, & Cunnington, 2011 ; Craighero et al, 2002 , 1999 ). The results of these studies are largely in agreement with the PCM, because most of them show facilitative effects, and the compatible dimensions are mostly spatial (see Gozli & Pratt, 2011 , for an exception). We did, however, not focus the review so far on single tasks, because the interpretation of compatibility effects in these tasks as motorvisual effects has frequently been criticized (e.g., Miall et al, 2006 ; Vogt, Taylor, & Hopkins, 2003 ).…”

Visuomotor and motorvisual priming with different types of set-level congruency: evidence in support of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model (PCM)

“…Features in an event file are thought to be shielded against all other concurrent cognitive processes, including perceptual processes. Thus, when selecting an action with a certain feature (e.g., “left”) in one task, perceptions of stimuli including congruent features (e.g., “left”) in another task are impaired (e.g., Eder & Klauer, 2007, 2009; Gozli & Pratt, 2011; James & Gauthier, 2009; Kunde & Wühr, 2004; Müsseler & Hommel, 1997b).…”

Implied Spatial Meaning and Visuospatial Bias: Conceptual Processing Influences Processing of Visual Targets and Distractors

“…Axis-specific interference has been previously reported [ 43 , 44 ], and could be explained in at least three ways. First, the involvement of the vertical spatial codes in processing the concept could render those spatial codes less available for the concurrent perceptual task [ 45 , 46 ]. Second, the need to differentiate and keep separate the two subtasks, the conceptual judgment and the visual search, might have inhibited the features that they share in common [ 47 , 48 ].…”

“…This observation suggests that concepts either facilitated visual selection of items along the horizontal axis or interfered with visual selection of items along the vertical axis. Although both alternatives are logically possible, there is much stronger precedence for the latter possibility in the literature [ 26 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].…”