Effects of prime—target spatial separation and attentional deployment on masked repetition priming

Marzouki, Yousri; Meeter, Martijn; Grainger, Jonathan

doi:10.3758/pp.70.7.1393

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Prinzmetal et al argued that the "spotlight of attention illuminates and helps to integrate features" (p. 367; see also Treisman, 2006;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). These results are also consistent with a recent suggestion by Finkbeiner and Forster (2008) that spatial attention influences an early pre-domain-specific stage of processing and with numerous demonstrations that drawing spatial attention away from a prime can significantly reduce and in many cases eliminate repetition priming Lachter et al, 2004;Marzouki, Grainger, & Theeuwes, 2007;Marzouki, Meeter, & Grainger, 2008). For example, Marzouki et al (2007) demonstrated that repetition priming in a letter-identification task was eliminated when the prime was unattended, and Besner et al (2005) showed the same with words.…”

Section: A More Complicated Picture?supporting

confidence: 80%

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Risko¹,

Stolz²,

Besner³

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of spatial attention in visual word processing has long concerned researchers. This research has focused predominately on questions concerning selective attention (e.g., the debate over early vs. late selection; e.g., Brown, Gore, & Carr, 2002;Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2005), for which words functioned as convenient stimuli (see Lachter, Forster, & Ruthruff, 2004, for a review). In contrast, questions regarding how attention influences visual word processing have received much less consideration. It is to these questions that we turned in the present investigation. Spatial AttentionVisual spatial attention allows individuals to select specific regions of the visual field for preferential processing (see Carrasco, 2006;Posner & Peterson, 1990, for reviews). The present investigation was concerned with covert spatial attention (i.e., shifts of spatial attention without eye movements). Attending to a location where a target appears has been demonstrated to improve performance across a number of different tasks (see, e.g., Carrasco, 2006).The most popular way to measure the influence of spatial attention is in the context of the spatial cuing paradigm (Posner, 1980). In this paradigm, a target is preceded by a spatial cue indicating the upcoming target's location (i.e., a valid trial) or a nontarget location (i.e., an invalid trial). Response times are typically faster on valid than on invalid trials (Posner, 1980). This cuing effect can be taken as an index of the influence of spatial attention on performance. For example, if spatial attention has no influence on processing, then no cuing effect should be observed.To understand the role of spatial attention in visual word processing, previous research has combined the cue validity manipulation with different word-processing tasks (Besner, Risko, & Sklair, 2005;Ducrot & Grainger, 2007;Hardyck, Chiarello, Dronkers, & Simpson, 1985;Lindell & Nicholls, 2003;McCann, Folk, & Johnston, 1992;Nicholls & Wood, 1998 ) demonstrated a robust cuing effect in lexical decision, suggesting that spatial attention influences word processing in some manner. Nicholls and Wood (1998) and Nicholls et al. also demonstrated a robust cuing effect in a reading aloud task. To better understand the nature of this cuing effect, the cue validity manipulation has been combined with manipulations that influence particular subcomponents of word processing. The nature of the joint effects of these factors can then be used to infer which reading processes are influenced by spatial attention (see, e.g., Sternberg, 1969). McCann et al. (1992) combined a manipulation of cue validity with manipulations of word frequency and lexicality in the context of a lexical decision task. The effects of cue validity were additive with both of these factors. Specifically, the size of the cuing effect was equivalent for high-and low-frequency words and equivalent for words and nonwords. Nicholls and Wood (1998), Nicholls et al. 989© One major idea about spatial attention is that it serves to modulate crosstalk ...

show abstract

Section: A More Complicated Picture?supporting

confidence: 80%

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Risko¹,

Stolz²,

Besner³

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the results of our second experiment serve to extend this claim to include temporal attention as well, further establishing the unique status of faces within the human visual system. Where masked priming effects elicited by word, letter, and number stimuli are well-documented to rely upon both temporal and spatial attention [23]–[25], [39], [40], [64], here we have demonstrated that masked faces are able to influence the participant’s response to a target stimulus irrespective of both spatial and temporal attention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Spatial and Temporal Attention Modulate the Early Stages of Face Processing: Behavioural Evidence from a Reaching Paradigm

Quek

Finkbeiner

2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A presently unresolved question within the face perception literature is whether attending to the location of a face modulates face processing (i.e. spatial attention). Opinions on this matter diverge along methodological lines – where neuroimaging studies have observed that the allocation of spatial attention serves to enhance the neural response to a face, findings from behavioural paradigms suggest face processing is carried out independently of spatial attention. In the present study, we reconcile this divide by using a continuous behavioural response measure that indexes face processing at a temporal resolution not available in discrete behavioural measures (e.g. button press). Using reaching trajectories as our response measure, we observed that although participants were able to process faces both when attended and unattended (as others have found), face processing was not impervious to attentional modulation. Attending to the face conferred clear benefits on sex-classification processes at less than 350ms of stimulus processing time. These findings constitute the first reliable demonstration of the modulatory effects of both spatial and temporal attention on face processing within a behavioural paradigm.

show abstract

“…Because it is known that physical proximity of primes to subsequently presented targets affects the magnitude of priming effects (Marzouki, Meeter, and Grainger, 2008), we tested for an effect of mere proximity of primes to targets. An ANOVA included the factor Target-Prime Distance (close, far) and Prime Condition (identity, scrambled; collapsing across categories).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A right visual field advantage for visual processing of manipulable objects

Garcea

Almeida

Mahon

2012

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information about object-associated manipulations is lateralized to left parietal regions, while information about the visual form of tools is represented bilaterally in ventral occipito-temporal cortex. It is unknown how lateralization of motor-relevant information in left hemisphere dorsal regions may affect the visual processing of manipulable objects. We used a lateralized masked priming paradigm to test for a Right Visual Field (RVF) advantage in tool processing. Target stimuli were tools and animals, and briefly presented primes were identical to, or scrambled versions of the targets. In Experiment 1, primes were presented either to the left or right of the centrally presented target, while in Experiment 2 primes were presented in one of 8 locations arranged radially around the target. In both experiments there was a RVF advantage in priming effects for tool but not for animal targets. Control experiments showed that participants were at chance for matching the identity of the lateralized primes in a picture-word matching experiment, and also ruled out a general RVF speed-of-processing advantage for tool images. These results indicate that the overrepresentation of tool knowledge in the left hemisphere affects visual object recognition, and suggest that interaction between the dorsal and ventral streams occurs during object categorization.

show abstract

Effects of prime—target spatial separation and attentional deployment on masked repetition priming

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Spatial and Temporal Attention Modulate the Early Stages of Face Processing: Behavioural Evidence from a Reaching Paradigm

A right visual field advantage for visual processing of manipulable objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About