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

Abstract

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

The diachronic account of attentional selectivity

“…Corresponding behavioural results were found in spatial cueing studies (Zivony & Lamy, 2016a;Remington & Folk, 2001), where the identity of distractors at uncued (unattended) locations elicited reliable compatibility effects, but these effects were considerably larger for cued (attended) distractors.…”

“…Direct evidence for indiscriminate amplification comes from the presence analogous location effects for distractors at cued locations. Many studies have demonstrated that such distractors elicit reliable response compatibility effects on target performance (e.g., faster RTs when the cued distractor and the target are mapped to the same as compared to different responses; e.g., Carmel & Lamy, 2014;Remington & Folk, 2001;Maxwell, Gaspelin, & Ruthruff, 2020;Zivony & Lamy, 2016a;2018). In contrast, no such compatibility effects were found for distractors that follow target-nonmatching cues.…”

The diachronic account of attentional selectivity

“…Such evidence comes from the presence analogous location effects for distractors at cued locations. Many studies have demonstrated that such distractors elicit reliable response compatibility effects on target performance (e.g., faster RTs when the cued distractor and the target are mapped to the same as compared to different responses; Carmel & Lamy, 2014;Remington & Folk, 2001;Maxwell, Gaspelin, & Ruthruff, 2020;Zivony & Lamy, 2016a, 2018; see also Chen, Leber, & Golomb, 2019, for a similar paradigm). In contrast, no such compatibility effects were found for distractors that follow target-nonmatching cues.…”

Contingent Attentional Engagement: Stimulus- and Goal-Driven Capture Have Qualitatively Different Consequences

“…It is widely agreed that when attention shifts towards the location of a prioritized object, a burst of transient enhancement speeds the extraction of information at that location and gates its consolidation into working memory (e.g., Goldfarb & Treisman, 2010;Wolfe, 2007), a process often referred to as "attentional engagement" (e.g., Folk, Ester & Troemel, 2009;Nieuwenstein, Chun, van der Lubbe & Hooge, 2005;Posner & Petersen, 1990) 2 . Accordingly, several studies showed that attentional engagement follows attentional capture (e.g., Carmel & Lamy, 2014;Folk & Remington, 2006;Theeuwes, Atchley & Kramer, 2000;Zivony & Lamy, 2016a). Attentional engagement was typically assessed by measuring response compatibility effects.…”

“…follows attentional capture (e.g., Carmel & Lamy, 2014;Folk & Remington, 2006;Theeuwes, Atchley, & Kramer, 2000;Zivony & Lamy, 2016b). Attentional engagement was typically assessed by measuring response-compatibility effects.…”