Attention‐shift vs. response‐priming explanations for the spatial cueing effect in cross‐modal tasks

Abstract

The task-irrelevant spatial location of a cue stimulus affects the processing of a subsequent target. This "Posner effect" has been explained by an exogenous attention shift to the spatial location of the cue, improving perceptual processing of the target. We studied whether the left/right location of task-irrelevant and uninformative tones produces cueing effects on the processing of visual targets. Tones were presented randomly from left or right. In the first condition, the subsequent visual target, requiring response either with the left or right hand, was presented peripherally to left or right. In the second condition, the target was a centrally presented left/right-pointing arrow, indicating the response hand. In the third condition, the tone and the central arrow were presented simultaneously. Data were recorded on compatible (the tone location and the response hand were the same) and incompatible trials. Reaction times were longer on incompatible than on compatible trials. The results of the second and third conditions are difficult to explain with the attention-shift model emphasizing improved perceptual processing in the cued location, as the central target did not require any location-based processing. Consequently, as an alternative explanation they suggest response priming in the hand corresponding to the spatial location of the tone. Simultaneous lateralized readiness potential (LRP) recordings were consistent with the behavioral data, the tone cues eliciting on incompatible trials a fast preparation for the incorrect response and on compatible trials preparation for the correct response.

Action inhibition and affordances associated with a non-target object: An integrative review

“…This facilitatory cueing effect occurs in manual responses even when the spatial prime is presented subliminally (Chou & Yeh, 2011). In addition, the spatial (left-right) cues have been observed to produce initial increased motor activation in the side of the motor cortex that is compatible with the cue location in these spatial cueing tasks (e.g., Eimer, 1995;Paavilainen et al, 2016). Similar LRP patterns were observed with the abstract mug-like primes in the study of Vainio et al (2014).…”

“…Firstly, proposed that the spatial cue component of the abstract objects produce a similar spatial cueing effect to that observed in traditional spatial cue paradigms (Posner, 1988). Similar to the compatibility effect observed with the abstract objects, these cue studies show that when the spatial prime is presented in the same location or side as the upcoming target (i.e., it cues the target location), the perceptual and response processes related to the target are facilitated (Posner, 1988;Posner & Petersen, 1990;Paavilainen et al, 2016). This facilitatory cueing effect occurs in manual responses even when the spatial prime is presented subliminally (Chou & Yeh, 2011).…”

“…Moreover, similarly to the mug primes, Vainio et al (2014) also found that electrophysiological recordings of left and right motor cortices showed motor activation compatible with the handle-related spatial features of the abstract primes. These findings suggest that in terms of initial motor activation, this effect cannot be separated from the effects typically observed with abstract spatial (left-right) cues (e.g., Valle-Inclán, 1996;Paavilainen et al, 2016). The handle type of feature of an abstract object, which is not recognized as a mug, initially produces an excitation of hand response that is compatible with this spatial prime.…”

“…In the Simon effect, the left-and right-hand responses are facilitated when the responding hand is compatible with the left-right location of the target object even when responses are performed according to a stimulus property other than a location. The dual-route models (Kornblum, et al, 1990) assume that the Simon effect is based on the response activation automatically activated by the stimulus location (Valle-Inclán, 1996;Paavilainen et al, 2016). For example, the task might be to select the responding hand according to the color of the stimulus (e.g., red for left and green for right), which is presented on the left or right side of the display.…”

Illuminating Smiles and Frowns: Visual-Affective Cueing Influences Viewer Perceptions of Page Layout Images

“…Our opposing findings for eye movement behavior versus affective evaluations indicated an essential difference between these two tasks. Recent literature has shown that presenting the cue and target stimuli simultaneously usually makes it difficult to identify cross-modal cueing effects (Spence, 2010), although some studies have found these cueing effects (Paavilainen et al, 2016;Spence, 2013). However, Kiefer, Liegel, Zovko, and Wentura (2017) demonstrated that affective priming effects are also usually modality-dependent such that a pictorial priming cue resulted in priming during a visual perceptual task but not during a semantic task, while semantic priming cues had greater priming effects during a semantic evaluation task (Kiefer & Martens, 2010;Martens, Ansorge, & Kiefer, 2011;Martens & Kiefer, 2009).…”