Abstract
AbstractTo explore the time course of space- and object-based attentional selection processes I analysed the shapes of the response time (RT) and accuracy distributions of left/right arrow identification responses in the two-rectangle paradigm. After cueing one of the four ends of two horizontally or vertically oriented rectangles the arrow typically appears at the cued location (valid), or sometimes at an uncued location in the same (invalid-same) or other rectangle (invalid-different). The data point to a multiple-route model in which (a) an informative cue generates response channel activation before arrow signals emerge, (b) the task-irrelevant arrow location is represented in multiple egocentric and allocentric reference frames around 150 ms after target onset, with the former including a reference frame centered on the currently attended location, (c) the task-irrelevant spatial codes activate premature response tendencies that are actively inhibited to allow gating of arrow direction signals, (d) after an invalid cue the onset of the arrow triggers an “attention shift” – acting between 150 and 240 ms after target onset – that strongly interferes with task performance in certain conditions (invalid-same cueing with horizontal rectangles, and invalid-different cueing with vertical rectangles), and (e) participants differ in which task-irrelevant codes they preferentially inhibit. These results pave the way for future confirmatory studies to temporally characterize and disentangle the contributions of different types of response channel activation processes, from those of reactive cognitive control processes including active and selective response suppression.
Highlights
Research on attention is ubiquitous since James (1890) claimed that “everyone knows what attention is”
One dimension concerns the type of selection bias: (a) selection of task-relevant information based on current goals, (b) reflexively orienting to physically salient stimulation, and (c) the ever-present, lingering memory effects of past selection episodes
More and more distributional results point to an important role for task-irrelevant activation processes and inhibitory control processes in shaping response time (RT) and accuracy distributions in various research paradigms (Panis, Moran, Wolkersdorfer, & Schmidt, 2020; Panis & Schmidt, 2016, 2020)
Summary
Research on attention is ubiquitous since James (1890) claimed that “everyone knows what attention is”. Attentional selection seems to involve attentional facilitation or gating of taskrelevant information, and attentional suppression or inhibition of task-irrelevant information (Gaspelin & Luck, 2018; Geng, 2014; Houghton & Tipper, 1996; Howard, Johnson, & Pascual-Leone, 2014; MacLeod, 2007; Moher & Egeth, 2012; Neumann & Deschepper, 1992; Noreen & MacLeod, 2015; Sawaki, Geng, & Luck, 2012; Slotnick, Schwarzbach, & Yantis, 2003; Weiß, Hilkenmeier, & Scharlau, 2013) Emphasizing how these multifaceted functions of attention are embedded in a context of goal-directed motor actions, Allport (1989) characterized attention as “selection-for-action”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
