The attentional mechanism of temporal orienting: determinants and attributes

Abstract

A review of traditional research on preparation and foreperiod has identified strategic (endogenous) and automatic (exogenous) factors probably involved in endogenous temporal-orienting experiments, such as the type of task, the way by which temporal expectancy is manipulated, the probability of target occurrence and automatic sequential effects, yet their combined impact had not been investigated. These factors were manipulated within the same temporal-orienting procedure, in which a temporal cue indicated that the target could appear after an interval of either 400 or 1,400 ms. We observed faster reaction times for validly versus invalidly cued targets, that is, endogenous temporal-orienting effects. The main results were that the probability of target occurrence (catch-trial proportion) modulated temporal orienting, such that the attentional effects at the short interval were independent of catch trials, whereas at the long interval the effects were only observed when catch trials were present. In contrast, the interval duration of the previous trial (i.e., exogenous sequential effects) did not influence endogenous temporal orienting. A flexible and endogenous mechanism of attentional orienting in time can account for these results. Despite the contribution of other factors, the use of predictive temporal cues was sufficient to yield attentional facilitation based on temporal expectancy.

Exposing the cuing task: the case of gaze and arrow cues

“…The typical foreperiod effect, as illustrated in Fig. 4, with fastest responses for targets at the longest cue-target interval, was observed only when tonic alertness was high and voluntary temporal preparation was present in Quadrant 1, while the most pronounced decline in its magnitude was observed when both processes were experimentally reduced in Quadrant 4 (Correa, Lupiàñez, & Tudela, 2006;Hayward & Ristic, 2013a). In line with our finding showing a larger susceptibility of spatial orienting elicited by arrows to changes in voluntary temporal preparation, the foreperiod effect elicited by arrows showed a more pronounced decline overall [cue type x cuetarget interval; F(1,116) = 7.0, p < 0.01; cue type x voluntary temporal preparation x cue-target interval; F(1,116)=6.8, p < 0.05; all other effects involving cue-target interval Fs<3, ps > 0.05].…”

Time in action contexts: learning when an action effect occurs

“…For RTs, we observed an effect of the validity of delay for short delays, but not for long delays. This was expected due to the ability to orient and reorient attention in time (e.g., Correa et al 2004Correa et al , 2006Miniussi et al, 1999). When a short delay was expected, but this delay had passed and no effect occurred, temporal attention was shifted to a later point in time.…”

“…First, we expected participants to respond faster after long compared to short delays because of the variable foreperiod effect (e.g., Bertelson & Tisseyre, 1968;Correa et al, 2004;Correa & Nobre, 2008;Elithorn & Lawrence, 1955;Karlin, 1959;Näätänen & Merisalo, 1977;Niemi & Näätänen, 1981). Second, we expected temporal validity effects only for effects that occur earlier but not for effects that occur later than expected, because in the latter case attention can be reoriented to the later point in time when the expectation of the effect occurring early was not met (e.g., Correa et al 2004Correa et al , 2006Miniussi et al, 1999).…”

Response specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm

“…Another way to manipulate expectancy in the variable-FP paradigm is by informative warning signals. If a warning signal informs participants of which FP will most likely appear in a trial, responses to the imperative stimulus are faster for validly than for invalidly cued FPs (Correa, Lupiáñez, Milliken, & Tudela, 2004;Correa, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2006b;Coull & Nobre, 1998).…”