Spatial negative priming modulation: The influence of probe-trial target cueing, distractor presence, and an intervening response

Fitzgeorge, Lyndsay; Buckolz, Eric

doi:10.1080/09541440701686250

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, they found that when there were two distractors in the prime display, NP was significant, even if the probe distractor was expected to be absent. Fitzgeorge and Buckolz (2008) replicated Guy et al by demonstrating that the effect of location NP without probe distractors could be observed when a distractor (but not a target) was presented in the primes. They suggested that location-based retrieval was blocked when only a target was presented.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 64%

“…At the empirical level, this is important because it is not evident whether location NP, similar to identity NP, disappears completely when the probe distractor is consistently absent. Considering that the presence of location NP could be modulated by global task contexts, such as types and proportions of different types of trials in one experiment (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001;Fitzgeorge & Buckolz, 2008), a pure task context is required for examining the impact of probe distractor removal on location NP. In other words, what is required is a context in which a probe distractor is never presented throughout the entire experiment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Chao

2009

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1072In order to achieve successful target selection, attention should be paid to the object that matches the target template, and the distractor should be ignored. However, the distractor is not simply kept unprocessed. The effect of negative priming (NP) refers to the observation that, when a distractor is repeated as the target, the response to the target is slower than that in the control condition (Tipper, 1985;Tipper & Cranston, 1985; for reviews, see Fox, 1995;May, Kane, & Hasher, 1995;Neill, Valdes, & Terry, 1995). The NP paradigm is used widely to investigate the underlying processes and aftereffects of selective attention.However, one question pertaining to NP has not yet been completely resolved: If this phenomenon merely reflects the aftereffect of attentional selection, why are probe distractors required to observe the NP effect? A typical NP task comprises couplets of prime and probe displays. In the ignored repetition (IR) condition, the prime distractor is repeated as a probe target; in the control condition, the prime stimuli are not repeated in the following probe trial. NP is measured as the difference in reaction times (RTs)-and sometimes in error rates (ERs)-between the control and IR conditions. It has been demonstrated that, when the distractor was absent during all the probe displays, the NP effect was eliminated (Lowe, 1979;Milliken, Joordens, Merikle, & Seiffert, 1998;Tipper, Brehaut, & Driver, 1990;Tipper & Cranston, 1985). With a Stroop color-naming task, Lowe's Experiment 4 demonstrated that identity NP was eliminated when there was no probe distractor word. In fact, an effect of positive priming was found when the probe distractor word was replaced by the color patch (23 vs. 21 msec). In a letter-naming task, Tipper and Cranston observed significant NP when the probe distractor was present ( 17 msec). However, response in the IR condition was faster than that in the control condition (14 msec) when the probe distractor was consistently absent. In a word-naming task, Milliken et al. (1998) also found significant NP when the probe distractor was present ( 8 msec), but they observed significant positive priming (5 msec) when the probe distractor was consistently absent. These findings are theoretically important and provide interesting insights into the NP phenomenon. Distractor Competition HypothesisAccording to a computational model of the inhibition account of NP (Houghton & Tipper, 1994), the effect of distractor inhibition is manifested during a competition between a probe target and a probe distractor. If there is no such competition (i.e., when the probe distractor is absent), it should be easy to respond to the target. As a result, the NP effect should not surface.The study of probe distractor competition can support this hypothesis. According to the distractor competition hypothesis, NP is manifested only when the probe distractor is competitive. In other words, even when the probe distractor is present, if it is not competitive, NP should not be observed. To test this predict...

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Chao

2009

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They seem unwilling or unable to do this, as distractor-occupied locations yield significant inhibitory after-effects (i.e., location discrimination had to have occurred for this to happen). A more sophisticated example of the difficulty in preventing unwanted automatic processing was provided by Fitzgeorge and Buckolz (2008), and by Fitzgeorge (2009). They showed that the SNP-central effect was eliminated when distractor free probe trials were likely (75%) and, in fact, materialized.…”

Section: The Perceptual Processing Of Centrally Delivered Events Doesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

Buckolz¹,

Fitzgeorge²,

Knowles³

2012

PSYCH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The view persists that the inhibition of return (IOR) and the spatial negative priming (SNP) phenomena may be produced by a common "orientation inhibition" mechanism (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001), held to arise during the processing of peripherally delivered (parafoveal) visual events. Both IOR and SNP effects are present when responding to recently to-be-ignored distractor events is delayed. Since an SNP effect has been produced using centrally located distracters (visual angle of about 2.5˚ or less), a common mechanism view would require that these locations generate orientation inhibition, which then cause of the SNP effect. We report past results and an experiment that reject the common mechanism view. Subjects completed four tasks; two, 1-response tasks, using either central (Task 1) or peripheral (Task 2: IOR) event locations, and two, 4-response tasks, again, using central (Task 3: SNP-central) or peripheral (Task 4: SNP-peripheral) locations. Trials occurred in pairs; first the prime (a target or a distractor), then the probe (target only). Critically, neither distractor-nor target-occupied prime locations produced either inhibitory (SNP effect) or positive after-effects, respectively, in Task 1. Seemingly, centrally located events do not generate orientation inhibition and so, unlike the IOR effect, this inhibition does not cause the SNP-central phenomenon.

show abstract

“…The best illustration of this pattern was presented in a single study by Fitzgeorge and Buckolz (2008).…”

Section: Distractor-only Prime Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At this point, the role of the probe distractor in SNP production is incorporated into the SNP account. Fitzgeorge and Buckolz (2008) and Buckolz et al (2012b) posited the existence of two independent neural pathways that retrieved stored distractor processing representations, which were triggered either by the probe trial target or the probe distractor (Schematic 1). In the first instance, when the probe target appears at the prime-trial distractor position, its activation of a former distractor response triggers distractor representation retrieval (i.e., 'response-based retrieval' route, Buckolz et al).…”

Section: A Theoretical Account Of Spatial Negative Priming (Snp) Prodmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of probe trial distractors in the production/removal of the spatial negative priming effect

Haworth

Buckolz

Kajaste

2014

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spatial negative priming (SNP) tasks, trials are presented in pairs; first the 'prime', and then the 'probe'. Target and/or distractor events appear on both trials and probe target reaction time is significantly lengthened when it arises at a former distractor-occupied location (ignored-repetition [IR] trial), relative to when it appears at a new location (control [CO] trial). This latency inequality, which is not inevitable, defines the SNP effect. Here, we examined the influence of prime and probe trial distractor identity similarity on restoring the SNP effect when its prevention was successfully motivated by the use of a .25 (distractor present)/.75 (distractor absent) condition. Two results were important: (1) the SNP effect was restored when the probe distractor identity fully matched that of the prime trial, but not when distractor identities partially or totally mismatched, showing a retrieval role for the probe distractor, and, (2) target-repeat trial facilitation showed the same pattern, present with full matches, otherwise being absent. These results showed that prime-trial processing representations are stored episodically in location tasks, and that event identities are part of the episode, making distractor event identity matches critical for prime representation retrieval. Additionally, event numbers were not part of the episode so that matching event numbers between prime and probe trials was not important for retrieval of stored prime representations.

show abstract

Spatial negative priming modulation: The influence of probe-trial target cueing, distractor presence, and an intervening response

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

The role of probe trial distractors in the production/removal of the spatial negative priming effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About