Which way is which? Examining global/local processing with symbolic cues.

Mills, Mark; Dodd, Michael D.

doi:10.1037/a0036454

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, the emerging suggestion is that shifts in precedence depend on the conflict between levels. This is consistent with Mills and Dodd (2014), with the exception that that study included no orienting task. In light of the present findings, this suggests that the level-specific advantage may not have been due to the task per se, but rather to conflict between the levels, with the effect of task serving to modulate the availability of the level- …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Considering that Mills and Dodd (2014) showed that the cueing effect with inconsistent cues changed with SOAsuch that a global cueing effect was observed at a 250-ms SOA, whereas a local cueing effect was observed at a 750-ms SOA-the absence of an influence of SOA in the present experiment may suggest that, rather than causing the local or global advantage per se, the effect of orienting task was to enhance, attenuate, or otherwise maintain the availability of level-specific information. This would explain both the presence of a local cueing effect with inconsistent cues at the 250-ms SOA, as well as the lack of an SOA effect with inconsistent cues.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 2 we examined this possibility. This experiment was a replication of Mills and Dodd (2014), with the exception that one of the local arrows was a color singleton. As in that study, with inconsistent cues, we found a global cueing effect at the 250-ms SOA and local cueing effects at the longer SOAs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar findings have been obtained with compound arrows. Mills and Dodd (2014) presented a spatially uninformative and task-irrelevant compound arrow (a large, global arrow constructed from smaller, local arrows) at fixation, which was followed by a peripheral target requiring a simple detection response. The directions of the global and local arrows were either consistent (same direction) or inconsistent (different directions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, in the present study we investigated whether the relative impacts of competing symbolic stimuli on attentional control depend on top-down selection processes. In particular, we used the compound-arrow cueing task introduced by Mills and Dodd (2014) to examine the effects of a top-down orienting task on the selection of information at the global and local levels of a compound arrow cue. Each trial consisted of two major events (Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

Mills

Dodd

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial symbols can generate attentional biases toward peripheral locations compatible with the symbol's meaning. An important question concerns how one symbol is selected when competing symbols are present. Studies examining this issue for spatially distinct symbols have suggested that selection depends on the task goals. In the present study, we examined whether the influence of competing symbolic stimuli (arrows) at different levels of structure on attentional control also depends on the task goals. Participants made simple detection responses to a peripheral target preceded by a spatially uninformative compound arrow (global arrow composed of local arrows). In addition, participants were required to perform a secondary task in which they matched the orientation of the global arrow (global task) or the location of a uniquely colored local arrow (local task) to a test display presented immediately following a detection response. When the global and local arrows pointed at opposite locations, a local cueing effect emerged in the local task, and a global cueing effect in the global task, indicating that the task goals influenced the selection of the level of structure. However, when the local level was spatially neutral (global arrow, local rectangles), a cueing effect was observed independent of task, and when the global level was spatially neutral (global rectangle, local arrows), a cueing effect was observed in the local task only, suggesting that global processing was obligatory and local processing optional. These findings suggest that attentional effects triggered by the global level are more strongly reflexive than those triggered by the local level.Keywords Attention . Symbolic control . Contingent capture . Compound cue . Global/local Everyday visual environments generally contain more information than can be processed within a glance. As such, goaldirected perception and action depend on mechanisms of selective visual attention for prioritizing an endless stream of sensory input, and so giving more weight to those objects, locations, or events that require immediate or sustained processing. To understand how attention is prioritized and allocated to visual stimuli, a useful distinction is that between bottom-up (reflexive) and top-down (volitional) attentional control, with the former driven by the physical characteristics of a stimulus and the latter by the current goals of the observer

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

Mills

Dodd

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accelerating reading via local priming

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual recollection in episodic memory.

Brainerd¹,

Gomes²,

Nakamura³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the mainstream memory literature, recollection is conceptualized as a univariate process that involves conscious reinstatement of contextual details that accompanied earlier events. That conception predominates in several domains other than basic memory research-such as cognitive development, cognitive neuroscience, dementia, and forensic interviewing. According to the dual-recollection hypothesis, however, there are 2 distinct forms of recollection: conscious reinstatement of contextual details (context recollection) and conscious reinstatement of target events per se (target recollection). We review existing lines of evidence that favor the dual-recollection hypothesis, and we describe a source-monitoring paradigm with an accompanying model that separates the 2 recollections from each other and from familiarity. Some experiments are reported whose aims were to determine how measures of target and context recollection react to a series of theoretically motivated manipulations and to assess the validity of the modeling tool that supplies those measurements. The manipulations produced a series of single and double dissociations between target recollection, context recollection, and familiarity, and subsequent state-trace analyses revealed that the 3 retrieval processes were jointly independent. Fit analyses showed that the model gave acceptable accounts of the data of all experiments, but that fit was unacceptable when either the target recollection process or the context recollection process was removed from the model.

show abstract

Which way is which? Examining global/local processing with symbolic cues.

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

Accelerating reading via local priming

Dual recollection in episodic memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About