Costs and benefits of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention.

Abstract

Three experiments examined the relative contributions of positive and negative priming in a selective attention task. A typical trial consisted of a briefly presented letter display containing a red target letter and a distractor letter of another color. This prime display was followed by another similar letter display (the probe). When the red target letters were identical in both displays, facilitation from identity repetition priming was obtained. When the unattended letter from the prime display became the probe target letter, response times were delayed, that is, a negative priming effect was found. Other combinations of target and distractor letters were manipulated to examine the relative influences of positive and negative priming. Results support the hypothesis that selective attention involves a selective inhibition mechanism and suggest that this inhibitory mechanism can be as influential as its excitatory counterpart.

Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty

“…A plausible hypothesis is that inhibition might lead to a reduction of interference on subsequent trials, even though it may not be effective in reducing interference on the trial during which the inhibition is applied. Support for this notion comes from the finding that responses when previously ignored distractors as well as targets are repeated are faster than responses when just targets are repeated (Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991). This is presumably because inhibited distractors are less available to produce interference on the next trial.…”

Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review

“…The dominant view is that NP is a reflection of inhibitory mechanisms in visual selective attention (e.g., Allport et al, 1985;Fox, 1994b;Milliken, Tipper, & Weaver, 1994;Moore, 1994;Neill, 1977Neill, , 1979Neill, , 1989Neill & Westberry, 1987;Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991Tipper, 1985;Tipper & Cranston, 1985;Tipper, Lortie, & Baylis, 1992;Tipper, Weaver, Cameron, Brehaut, & Bastedo, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, & Houghton, 1994;Tipper, Weaver, Kirkpatrick, & Lewis, 1991;Yee, 1991). This is the selective inhibition account.…”

Location negative priming in identity discrimination relies on location repetition

“…Thus, neither the prediction of positive priming (Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991;Stadler & Hogan, 1996) nor the prediction of negative priming (Christie & Klein, 2001) was supported. The null result perhaps was due to a balance of a facilitatory effect and an inhibitory effect of location repetition.…”

“…In the D-to-T condition, which is the traditional IR condition, the location of the probe target was the location of the prime distractor. In the T-to-D condition, where greater interference from the probe distractor was expected (Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991;Stadler & Hogan, 1996), the location of a probe distractor was the location of a prime target. The switch condition was the combination of the D-to-T condition and the T-to-D condition-that is, the target and the distractor locations were exchanged from prime to probe.…”

“…Either positive priming (Neumann & DeSchepper, 1991;Stadler & Hogan, 1996) or negative priming (Christie & Klein, 2001) was expected. Both Neumann and DeSchepper (1991) and Stadler (1996) and Hogan studied identity priming, whereas Christie and Klein studied location priming effects. In the D-to-D condition, the location of the probe distractor repeated the location of the prime distractor.…”