Orientation Probability and Spatial Exogenous Cuing Improve Perceptual Precision and Response Speed by Different Mechanisms.

Syaheed B Jabar,Britt Anderson

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00183

Abstract

We are faster and more accurate at detecting frequently occurring objects than infrequent ones, just as we are faster and more accurate at detecting objects that have been spatially cued. Does this behavioral similarity reflect similar processes? To evaluate this question we manipulated orientation probability and exogenous spatial cuing within a single perceptual estimation task. Both increased target probability and spatial cuing led to shorter response initiation times and more precise perceptual reports, but these effects were additive. Further, target probability changed the shape of the distribution of errors while spatial cuing did not. Different routes and independent mechanisms could lead to changes in behavioral measures that look similar to each other and to ‘attentional’ effects.

Highlights

IntroductionThis probability benefit occurs in simple detection tasks (Laberge and Tweedy, 1964; Miller and Pachella, 1973; Hon et al, 2013), in visual-search tasks (Wolfe et al, 2007; Rich et al, 2008), and in perceptual estimation tasks (Anderson, 2014; Jabar and Anderson, 2015)
Probability and spatial cuing manipulations generally result in similar behavioral effects: Speed and accuracy are facilitated (Anderson and Druker, 2013; Anderson, 2014; Jabar and Anderson, 2015, in press)
As both these effects resemble what might traditionally be labeled as ‘attentional,’ one could surmise a common mechanism. We manipulated both types of cues conjointly within a single perceptual estimation task

Summary

Introduction

This probability benefit occurs in simple detection tasks (Laberge and Tweedy, 1964; Miller and Pachella, 1973; Hon et al, 2013), in visual-search tasks (Wolfe et al, 2007; Rich et al, 2008), and in perceptual estimation tasks (Anderson, 2014; Jabar and Anderson, 2015) These behavioral outcomes resemble the effects of typical ‘attentional’ exogenous spatial cuing (e.g., Posner and Cohen, 1984) where cued targets are reacted to more quickly and reported more accurately. It could be that on-line, implicit probability learning leads to faster and more precise estimates of the orientation of probable stimuli by the same mechanisms as spatial cuing (Anderson and Druker, 2013), but that additional and distinct mechanisms contribute to behavioral benefits when information is explicitly provided

Methods

Results

Conclusion