Selective attention in a reaching task: Effect of normal aging and alzheimer's disease.

Simone, Patricia M.; Baylis, Gordon C.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.595

Cited by 41 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tipper, Lortie, and Baylis (1992; Experiment 1), for example, have already documented the interference effects on target ϩ distractor trials compared with target-alone trials in normal subjects as have Meegan and Tipper (1998) (see also data from patients with Alzheimer's disease on a similar paradigm; Simone & Baylis, 1997). Similar results, albeit from a more complex experiment and measurement procedure, have also been obtained in subsequent studies Tipper, Howard, & Jackson, 1997).…”

Section: Neglect and The Processing Of Contralateral Informationsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…First, we need to document the presence and extent of interference from distractors in normal subjects in the particular experimental paradigm we utilize. Second, some, although not all, studies have shown that older subjects are more susceptible to interference than are their younger counterparts, especially in more demanding tasks and because the patients who participate in this study are older, age-matched control subjects are important (Nebes & Madden, 1983;Simone & Baylis, 1997;Tipper, 1991). All subjects were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, and consented to participate.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visuomotor Processing in Unilateral Neglect

Behrmann

Meegan

1998

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Neglect and The Processing Of Contralateral Informationsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Visuomotor Processing in Unilateral Neglect

Behrmann

Meegan

1998

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This finding is consistent with recent reports of individual differences in the negative priming effect. These studies have shown that certain groups-in particular, Alzheimer's patients, schizophrenics, children, and older adultsoften show reduced negative priming (Cohen & ServanSchreiber, 1992;Dempster, 1992;Hasher & Zacks, 1988;Simone & Baylis, 1997). Most applicable to the results presented here is a recent study by Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, and Engle (1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the claim that individual differences in working-memory capacity reflect limitations on the ability to inhibit task-irrelevant information and/or to maintain activation in the face of distracting or interfering events. Specifically, we investigated whether high-and low-capacity individuals differed in their susceptibility to interference on the Stroop task and whether high-capacity individuals employed a strategy for minimizing Stroop interference. In Experiment 1, we found that high-capacity participants showed substantial interference when conflict trials were infrequent, but almost no interference when conflict trials were frequent. In contrast, low-capacity participants showed substantial interferenceirrespectiveof the proportion of conflict trials. In Experiment 2, we found that high-capacity participants experienced substantial negative priming, slow responses when the to-be-named color was the irrelevant word on the previous trial. We discuss these results and their implications for highcapacity individuals' ability to reduce Stroop interference in light of both inhibitory and noninhibitory accounts of negative priming.

show abstract

“…In Experiment 1, we examined the pattern of distractor interference in a selective reaching task involving a much smaller targetdistractor separation than that typically used by Tipper and colleagues (Meegan & Tipper, 1998Simone & Baylis, 1997;Tipper et al, 1992). In addition, the effect of eye position on distractor interference was assessed.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Small Target-distractor Separationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective reaching: Evidence for multiple frames of reference.

Keulen¹,

Adam²,

Fischer³

et al. 2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students participated in 3 experiments investigating the use of environment-and action-centered reference frames in selective reaching. They pointed to a green target appearing either with or without a red distractor. Target-distractor distance was manipulated, and distractor interference (difference between distractor trials and no-distractor trials) was measured in reaction time, movement time, and movement endpoint. Target-distractor distance determined the dominant frame of reference. Small distances evoked an environment-centered framework that encoded targets within an external context. Large distances evoked an action-centered framework that encoded targets relative to the start position of the hand. Results support the hypothesis that the brain represents spatial information in multiple frames of reference, with the dominant frame of reference being dependent on the task demands.A well-known example used to highlight the concept of selective attention is picking a ripe apple from a branch when an unripe apple is nearby on the same branch (e.g., Meegan & Tipper, 1999). This example shows that selective attention mediates goal-directed action through selection of appropriate actions and inhibition of inappropriate actions (i.e., picking the unripe apple). These selection processes take time, resulting in a longer time to respond to the target when a distractor is present than when it is not. The interfering effect of a distractor on response time, labeled distractor interference, was demonstrated by Tipper, Lortie, and Baylis (1992) in a selective reaching task. Tipper et al. (1992) asked participants to reach for and depress one of nine target buttons arranged in a 3 ϫ 3 matrix. Two small lights, one red (the target) and one yellow (the distractor), were positioned directly below each button. On 20% of the trials the red light (the target) appeared alone, whereas on the remaining trials the yellow light (the distractor) appeared concurrently with the red light but at a different location. Starting from different home positions, participants had to touch as quickly as possible the button indicated by the red light while ignoring the button associated with the yellow light. Using response time (time from stimulus onset to contact of the target button) as the dependent variable, Tipper et al. (1992) found that the presence of a distractor light in the display slowed reaching performance.1 Moreover, results showed two asymmetries in the spatial nature of the interference effect. In one, distractors located between the start position of the hand and the position of the target caused greater interference than did distractors located beyond the target. Tipper et al. called this the proximity-to-hand effect. In the other, distractors located in the hemispace ipsilateral to the responding hand caused more interference than did contralateral distractors. Tipper et al. called this the ipsilateral effect. The two effects indicate that the spatial relationship of the target and distractor with the start position of th...

show abstract

Selective attention in a reaching task: Effect of normal aging and alzheimer's disease.

Cited by 41 publications

References 29 publications

Visuomotor Processing in Unilateral Neglect

Visuomotor Processing in Unilateral Neglect

Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation

Selective reaching: Evidence for multiple frames of reference.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About