Spatial negative priming: In touch, it’s all about location

Abstract

Spatial negative priming (SNP) refers to the finding that responses to stimuli that are presented from previously ignored locations are slowed relative to responses to stimuli presented from previously unstimulated locations. To date, this effect has been demonstrated in vision, audition, and touch. Importantly, however, the cognitive processes involved differ between vision and audition. Although SNP is attributable to feature mismatch in the auditory modality, it is primarily caused by response inhibition in vision. To date, the locus of SNP in touch has not been established, though recently it has been shown that tactile SNP is not modulated by feature mismatch. Here, we demonstrate that in touch, as compared to vision and audition, SNP is more sensitive to the location features-and not solely to the response and stimulus features. Thus, in stark contrast to identity-based negative priming, in which responses to previously ignored stimuli (based on the stimulus identity) can be explained by the same mechanisms in all three sensory modalities, SNP would appear to be caused by different processes in each sensory modality, thus suggesting that the processing of the spatial properties of distractors is modality-specific.

Spatial negative priming: Location or response?

“…That is, if RT is slower to a probe target at the prime distractor location than to a probe at a new location requiring the same response (and otherwise equated on relation to the prime trial), then there is clearly a location-specific effect. This exact effect was found by Wesslein, Spence, Mast, and Frings (2016) in an investigation of SNP in the tactile domain. In their experiment, subjects responded to one of two possible vibrotactile stimuli applied to the left or right wrist, forearm or upper arm.…”

“…Insofar as the present experiment actually shows a benefit (in error rates) to a response associated with a distractor, the answer here appears to be Bno.L ocation-specific SNP has implications for recent discussions of differences between sensory modalities. As mentioned earlier, Wesslein et al (2016) demonstrated a location-specific effect in touch. Because previous research (Buckolz et al, 2004;Buckolz, Edgar et al, 2012;Guy et al, 2006) seemed to indicate that SNP in the visual modality is due to response inhibition, Wesslein et al naturally concluded that the mechanism underlying SNP differs between touch and vision.…”

“…(This is the pattern originally reported for visual displays by Park & Kanwisher, 1994, but disputed by Milliken et al, 1994, andTipper et al, 1995. ) In contrast, tactile SNP occurs regardless of whether the probe target matches the prime distractor (Frings, Mast & Spence, 2014;Wesslein et al, 2016). Recent reviews of negative priming (Frings et al, 2015;May et al, 1995;Neill, 2007) have concluded that neither inhibition nor memory retrieval alone provide a sufficient account of the range of findings.…”

“…Ironically, Wesslein et al (2016) accepted the past conclusions (Buckolz et al, 2004;Guy et al 2006;Buckolz, Edgar et al, 2012) that SNP in the visual domain is due to response inhibition. As such, there appeared to be a fundamental difference in the cause of SNP between the two modalities (as well as audition).…”

Separating after-effects of target and distractor processing in the tactile sensory modality

“…That is, when a distractor stimulus of one trial (the prime) is repeated as target stimulus on the subsequent trial (the probe)-which is the case in the so-called ignored repetition condition of the negative priming (NP) paradigm, then probe performance is slower and/or more error prone, compared with a control condition without stimulus repetitions. Such NP effects have been documented for tactile stimuli (Frings, Amendt, & Spence, 2011;Frings, Bader, & Spence, 2008;Wesslein, Spence, Mast, & Frings, 2016), for stimuli of other sensory modalities (e.g., visual : Tipper, 1985;auditory: Mayr & Buchner, 2007;olfactory: Olsson, 1999), as well as across different stimulus modalities (audiovisually: Buchner, Zabal, & Mayr, 2003).…”