The use of a distractor-assigned response slows later responding in a location negative priming task

Abstract

Responding to a target's location takes longer when that location has recently contained a distractor event (ignored-repetition [IR] trial) relative to when it has been unoccupied (control trial). This is known as the location negative priming (NP) effect. We aimed to determine whether the elevated reaction time observed for IR trials was due to the reuse of a distractor location (location locus) and/or to the need to execute a (just inhibited) distractor response (response locus). We isolated these loci latency effects by using many-to-one and one-to-many location-response assignments. Our results showed that reusing a distractor location hastened target processing at that position (facilitative location locus), whereas the production of a distractor response was associated with a time cost (interfering response locus). Accordingly, part of the latency elevation seen with IR trials results from the need on these occasions to execute a just inhibited (distractor) response, and, hence, the location NP effect has a response locus.

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

“…Thus, Frings et al (2014) provided indicative evidence that touch behaves like vision when it comes to spatial NP, insofar as in touch and vision the perceptual interference during probe encoding seems not to be as important for spatial NP. Turning to visuospatial NP, the aftereffect of the repetition of the prime distractor response as a probe target response (without repetition of the prime distractor location) is sufficient to induce NP (Buckolz et al, 2004). Evidence regarding the role of response inhibition in tactile spatial NP has thus far been lacking.…”

“…Specifically, visuospatial NP effects depend on the repetition of the prime distractor response during the probe display, not on requiring the repetition of the prime distractor location. That is, the inhibition of the prime distractor response has been demonstrated to be the main cause of visuospatial NP (e.g., Buckolz et al, 2004). By contrast, no significant contribution of response inhibition to auditory NP has been observed (Möller et al, 2013).…”

“…To investigate this issue, we developed a new tactile variant of the spatial NP paradigm. Crucially, as in those spatial NP paradigms used by Buckolz et al (2004), the classical one-to-one mapping between the stimuli and responses was therefore eliminated in the present study (though we did so by different means; see below). Specifically, Buckolz et al (2004) included a freechoice mapping for one location.…”

“…Crucially, as in those spatial NP paradigms used by Buckolz et al (2004), the classical one-to-one mapping between the stimuli and responses was therefore eliminated in the present study (though we did so by different means; see below). Specifically, Buckolz et al (2004) included a freechoice mapping for one location. As a result, on some trials the participant's probe response was a repetition of the prime distractor response without the probe location being a repetition of the prime distractor location.…”

“…Note, however, that in the original spatial NP paradigm, once again both the location of the prime distractor and the associated response are involved on ignored repetition trials, but not on control trials. Hence, on the other hand, response inhibition may also contribute to spatial NP (see Buckolz, Goldfarb, & Khan, 2004). Furthermore, Park and Kanwisher (1994) have suggested that feature mismatch may cause spatial NP.…”