1994
DOI: 10.1080/14640749408401098
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioural Goals Determine Inhibitory Mechanisms of Selective Attention

Abstract: It has been argued that during selection of target objects, irrelevant distractor objects are inhibited (e.g. Tipper, 1985). This article examines whether distractor inhibition is an invariant process that occurs in the same way for each act of selection, or whether it is a flexible process that adjusts to particular behavioural goals. We review previous studies and report new experiments that demonstrate that inhibition is a flexible process. Those internal representations of the distractor that are most asso… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
182
1
1

Year Published

1995
1995
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(205 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
21
182
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One possible explanation is that it arises due to a process of selective inhibition. Outlined in Tipper, Weaver and Houghton (1994), such a process in the context of the present study begins with exposure to a problem (i.e., the prime), which elicits a verbal response code for its correct solution. This response code then directly competes with the verbal naming response required to the incongruent target, thereby leading to inhibition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One possible explanation is that it arises due to a process of selective inhibition. Outlined in Tipper, Weaver and Houghton (1994), such a process in the context of the present study begins with exposure to a problem (i.e., the prime), which elicits a verbal response code for its correct solution. This response code then directly competes with the verbal naming response required to the incongruent target, thereby leading to inhibition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…gram, star, square, suitcase, arrow, diamond) were used to create the figures that appeared in a quasi-random sequence which prevented the same figure appearing at the local and global levels on successive trials (Tipper et al 1994). Stimulus size was 110 mmi110 mm, made of small objects (6 mmi6 mm), and subtending visual angles of approximately 16m and 1m, respectively.…”
Section: (B) Paradigm Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference in target-to-distractor distance used in their experiments may have caused the inconsistency. Whereas Connelly and Hasher used longer target-to-distractor distances (ranging between 2.5º and 9.5º), Tipper et al (1994) used shorter target-to-distractor distances (ranging between 1.6º and 2.4º, estimated). We suspected that location negative priming in a naming task might occur only when the target and the distractor are far apart.…”
Section: Experiments 2amentioning
confidence: 99%