Space, object, and task selection

Lachter, Joel; Remington, Roger W.; Ruthruff, Eric

doi:10.3758/app.71.5.995

Cited by 5 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, when the foil's location was not cued, interference from neither its relevant nor its irrelevant dimension was observed. Lachter et al (2009) reported a similar pattern of results when participants were instructed about the relevant dimension only after they had identified the target, suggesting that these effects occurred at a postperceptual stage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

“…On the other hand, Lachter, Remington, and Ruthruff (2009) suggested that "features of an object do not automatically activate responses unless that object is selected for action " (p. 995). This conclusion relied on the results of follow-up experiments that these authors conducted on a study by Remington and Folk (2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the far-reaching implications of Remington and colleagues' claims (Lachter et al, 2009;Remington & Folk, 2001), it is important to critically evaluate any alternative explanation for the results on which they rely. On the one hand, their paradigm is Figure 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of dimension relevance in features’ access to response-selection mechanisms.

Zivony

Lamy

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely agreed that attending to a stimulus entails that all its features are processed. However, whether all these features are granted access to response-selection mechanisms remains a debated issue. Some authors suggest that all the features of the attended object affect response selection, irrespective of their relevance to the task at hand, whereas others claim that only its currently relevant features do. Yet others suggest that irrelevant features of an attended object affect response selection only if this object is the target, that is, only if it is selected for action. The results from 3 experiments show that responses associated with an attended object's irrelevant dimension interfered with response selection even when this object was not selected for action, but to a lesser extent than the responses associated with its relevant dimension. Our findings also show that interference from the irrelevant dimension can be masked when the response codes associated with the relevant and irrelevant dimensions compete. We suggest a parsimonious account of the findings from the extant literature that obviates the need to postulate a qualitative distinction between attention and selection for action. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of dimension relevance in features’ access to response-selection mechanisms.

Zivony

Lamy

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, what if the spider would be included in the target set? Evidence suggests that in similar spatial cueing paradigms with threat-neutral stimuli, the identity of attended non-targets can slow response times to identify a target when they are incompatible with the response to be made (Remington, Folk, & McLean, 2001;Lachter, Remington, & Ruthruff, 2009). In Experiment 2…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set

Vromen

Lipp

Remington

2014

Cognition and Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus-driven preferential attention to threat can be modulated by goal-driven attention (Hahn & Gronlund, 2007;Van Dillen, Lakens, & Van den Bos, 2011;Vogt, De Houwer, Crombez, & Van Damme, 2013). However, it remains unclear how this goal-driven modulation affects specific attentional components implied in threat interference. We hypothesize that goal-driven modulation most strongly impacts delayed disengagement from threat. A spatial cueing task was used that disentangles delayed disengagement from attentional capture by tightly manipulating the locus of attention at the time of target onset. Different top-down goals were induced by instructing participants to identify bird/fish targets (Experiment 1) or spider/cat targets (Experiment 2) among animal non-targets. Delayed disengagement from a non-target spider was observed only when the spider was part of the target set, not when it was task-irrelevant. This corroborates evidence that threat stimuli do not necessarily override goal-driven attentional control and that extended processing of threatening distractors is not obligatory.Keywords: threat, fear, attention, goal-driven, stimulus-driven The Spider does 3The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set.We are generally able to exert control over where we direct our attention.However, objects in the visual world will, at times, drive our attention. By its nature this stimulus-driven attention may act in opposition to the goal-driven (i.e. top-down) control of attention. An ongoing debate on the nature of attentional control has raised the question whether attention to salient distracter stimuli is involuntary and driven solely by stimulus properties such as abrupt onsets (Schreij, Theeuwes, & Olivers, 2010;Yantis & Jonides, 1984), color, and salience (e.g. Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010;Posner, 1980;Theeuwes, 1994;), or is modulated by task goals. For example, salient but irrelevant distractors in spatial cueing have been shown to capture attention only when they contained a target feature (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992). Folk et al. showed that a single abrupt-onset distractor captured attention if the target was a single abrupt-onset stimulus, but not when the target was a color singleton. Conversely, a color singleton distractor captured attention if the target was a color singleton, but not when the target was a single stimulus defined by its abrupt onset. Consequently, it has been argued that attentional capture is contingent on an attentional control setting for task-relevant properties (contingent attentional capture; Folk et al.). A large number of subsequent studies (e.g. Dombrowe, Donk, & Olivers, 2011;Eimer, Kiss, Press, & Sauter, 2009;Folk, Remington, & Wu, 2009;Irons, Folk, & Remington, 2011;Wolfe, Butcher, Lee, & Hyle, 2003) have supported that one's attentional set modulates distractor interference, thus advocating top-down modulation of attentional interference.Against the background of the debate on the nature o...

show abstract

“…However, we cannot reject the possibility that later processes on response selection caused the asymmetry. Indeed, Lachter, Remington, and Ruthruff (2009) showed that no matter which response is prepared for, only the executed response shows dimensional selectivity. Though in our experiment, participants executed both responses, they prepared the response to the motion task before the response to the colour task.…”

Section: Asymmetric Effects For Motion and Colourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial attention can be biased towards an expected dimension

Burnett

d’Avossa

et al. 2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A commonly held view in both exogenous and endogenous orienting is that spatial attention is associated with enhanced processing of all stimuli at the attended location. However, we often search for a specific target at a particular location, so an observer should be able to jointly specify the target identity and expected location. Whether attention can bias dimension-specific processes at a particular location is not yet clear. We used a dual task to examine the effects of endogenous spatial cues on the accuracy of perceptual judgments of different dimensions. Participants responded to a motion target and a colour target, presented at the same or different locations. We manipulated a central cue to predict the location of the motion or colour target. While overall performance in the two tasks was comparable, cueing effects were larger for the target whose location was predicted by the cue, implying that when attending a particular location, processing of the likely dimension was preferentially enhanced. Additionally, an asymmetry between the motion and colour tasks was seen; motion was modulated by attention, and colour was not. We conclude that attention has some ability to select a dimension at a particular location, indicating integration of spatial and feature-based attention.

show abstract

Space, object, and task selection

Cited by 5 publications

References 58 publications

The role of dimension relevance in features’ access to response-selection mechanisms.

The role of dimension relevance in features’ access to response-selection mechanisms.

The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set

Spatial attention can be biased towards an expected dimension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About