Abstract

In visual search tasks, repeating features or the position of the target results in faster response times. Such inter-trial ‘priming’ effects occur not just for repetitions from the immediately preceding trial but also from trials further back. A paradigm known to produce particularly long-lasting inter-trial effects–of the target-defining feature, target position, and response (feature)–is the ‘priming of pop-out’ (PoP) paradigm, which typically uses sparse search displays and random swapping across trials of target- and distractor-defining features. However, the mechanisms underlying these inter-trial effects are still not well understood. To address this, we applied a modeling framework combining an evidence accumulation (EA) model with different computational updating rules of the model parameters (i.e., the drift rate and starting point of EA) for different aspects of stimulus history, to data from a (previously published) PoP study that had revealed significant inter-trial effects from several trials back for repetitions of the target color, the target position, and (response-critical) target feature. By performing a systematic model comparison, we aimed to determine which EA model parameter and which updating rule for that parameter best accounts for each inter-trial effect and the associated n-back temporal profile. We found that, in general, our modeling framework could accurately predict the n-back temporal profiles. Further, target color- and position-based inter-trial effects were best understood as arising from redistribution of a limited-capacity weight resource which determines the EA rate. In contrast, response-based inter-trial effects were best explained by a bias of the starting point towards the response associated with a previous target; this bias appeared largely tied to the position of the target. These findings elucidate how our cognitive system continually tracks, and updates an internal predictive model of, a number of separable stimulus and response parameters in order to optimize task performance.

Highlights

  • Selecting the most relevant, and deprioritizing irrelevant, visual information is important in many everyday tasks

  • response times (RTs) were significantly faster when the target appeared at the same position compared to either a previous distractor location (TT vs. TD: 46-ms difference, Bonferroni-corrected t(13) = 9.28, pbonf < .001, BF10 > 1000) or a previously empty location (TT vs. the neutral (TN): 30-ms difference, t(13) = 7.15, pbonf < .001, BF10 > 1000); there was a significant cost when the target appeared at a previous distractor position vs. a previously empty position (TD vs. TN: –16-ms difference, t(13) = –9.48, pbonf < .001, BF10 > 1000)

  • Comparing 1920 different models for each of 14 participants, we showed that the best models in general predicted the temporal profiles of the inter-trial effects well, with some interesting deviations that are discussed in more detail below

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Deprioritizing irrelevant, visual information is important in many everyday tasks. Visual search tasks provide a rich source of evidence for studying the dynamics underlying this updating: Apart from more general goal-based, topdown adjustments of the task set, the system settings are constantly adapted in response to the stimuli encountered on sequential search trials. These adaptations give rise to inter-trial, or selection, history effects, where performance on the task improves when some critical stimulus property is repeated across trials and impaired if it changes The goal of the present study was to apply mathematical modeling– evidence accumulation models to RT data to a ‘classical’ visual singleton, or ‘popout’, search task (adapted from [3,8]), employing a novel approach, namely: taking into account observers’ natural perceptual uncertainty in performing a given task and, associated with this, the possibility of adaptive trial-by-trial updating of the model parameters, in order to characterize the perceptual and cognitive mechanism/s of multiple types of (non-/spatial) inter-trial ‘priming’ in this task

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call