There is more to trial history than priming in attentional capture experiments.

Abstract

We used contingent attentional capture to investigate whether capture in a given trial n was affected by the cue-target position relations in a preceding trial n-1. Typically, attentional capture by a cue facilitates reaction times for targets in valid conditions (with the cue and target at the same position) relative to invalid conditions (with the cue and target at different positions). Also, this validity effect holds for cues with a feature similar to the searched-for target features (i.e., matching cues), but not for cues dissimilar to the searched-for target features (i.e., nonmatching cues), a pattern termed contingent capture because capture is assumed to be contingent on the match between the cue and top-down control settings. Here, we replicated this contingent-capture pattern with cues that were nonpredictive of the target position. In addition, we showed that during search for white onset targets, red nonmatching color cues also created a validity effect if the same nonmatching cue had been used as a valid cue in trial n-1 (Exps. 1 and 2). This intertrial contingency of the nonmatching cue's validity effect was also found if the cues and targets both changed their positions from trial to trial, rendering position priming unlikely (Exp. 2). A similar intertrial contingency was found for nonmatching white onset cues, but not for matching red color cues during search for red color targets (Exp. 3). These results are discussed in light of explanations of the contingent-capture effect and of intertrial contingencies.