Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention

Luo, Chunming; Lupiáñez, Juan; Funes, María Jesús; Fu, Xiaolan

doi:10.1080/17470210903004638

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results have been observed in other studies (Brown & Denney, 2007;Lamy & Egeth, 2002;Lamy & Tsal, 2000;Luo, Lupiáñez, Funes & Fu, 2010, 2011Vecera, 1994).…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

“…An attentional spreading view of object-based attention proposes that attentional spreading through an attended object can improve the rate and efficiency of perceptual processes, which likely enhances the representation of the attended object relative to unattended objects (Cosman & Vecera, 2012;Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Luo et al, 2010Luo et al, , 2011. This view can explain the object-based effects observed in the two-rectangle cueing paradigms (Egly et al, 1994;Lamy & Tsal, 2000;Vecera, 1994) by proposing that targets displayed in an attended object are more likely to be attended because attention spreads readily within objects but not across objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptual grouping of objects occupied by target and flankers affects target-flanker interference

Luo

Proctor

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report four experiments that tested whether object-based attentional spreading can be modulated by the perceptual structure of objects occupied by target and flankers in a flanker task. The target and flankers were presented on a single object or three separate objects (of same or different shape), displayed at fixed, known locations. The flanker compatibility effect was larger when the target and flankers were on the same object or on three objects of the same shape than when they were on three objects of different shapes, indicating that perceptual grouping of background objects occupied by target and flankers can affect the target-flanker interference. These results imply that attention likely spreads across different objects occupied by target and flankers when these objects are separated by small gaps or have identical shapes, and attentional spreading is impeded when these objects have different shapes, suggesting that object-based attentional spreading can be modulated by the perceptual structure of objects.

show abstract

“…Similar results have been observed in other studies (Brown & Denney, 2007;Lamy & Egeth, 2002;Lamy & Tsal, 2000;Luo, Lupiáñez, Funes & Fu, 2010, 2011Vecera, 1994).…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Perceptual grouping of objects occupied by target and flankers affects target-flanker interference

Luo

Proctor

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, location information from the cue can be used to localize the target, leading to improved target processing (Funes et al, 2005). The spatial match may also be flexibly adjusted to the structure of the entire visual field: Since "spatial Stroop," usually reduced by spatial cues, is reduced not only at the cued location, but also for the entire cued object (Luo, Lupiáñez, Funes, & Fu, 2010), it was suggested that all locations of an object can be integrated into one event. In this regard, the texture advantage found in the present series of experiments could be explained in terms of a spatial match assumption.…”

Section: Texture Advantage As a Results Of Event Integration Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Textures shape the attentional focus: Evidence from exogenous and endogenous cueing

Feldmann-Wüstefeld

Schubö

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial cueing paradigm (Posner Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32:3-25, 1980) has often been used to investigate the time course of the deployment of visual attention in space. In a series of eight experiments we investigated whether spatial cues would not only enhance processing of stimuli presented at cued locations, but also enhance processing of the entire texture in which the stimuli were presented. Results showed highest accuracy for responses to stimuli presented at cued locations, a replication of the traditional cueing effect (Posner 1980). Additionally, stimuli presented at uncued locations were responded to with higher accuracy when they were presented inside the same texture as the cued location, as compared with stimuli presented outside the texture with the cued location. To investigate this texture advantage for both automatic and voluntary attention deployment, exogenous and endogenous cues were used. The texture advantage was observed for short interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 50 and 100 ms for exogenous cues and for a longer ISI of 200 ms for endogenous cues. These findings indicate that the arrangement of task-irrelevant visual stimuli also can have a large impact on the cueing effect. This suggests that visual spatial attention spreads texture-wise across the visual field. Control experiments revealed that the homogeneity within texture elements contributes most to the effect but that the texture advantage is a function of both orientation contrast at the texture border and homogeneity within texture elements.

show abstract

“…Actually, we have recently observed some evidence indicating that the modulation of cueing on spatial interference is object based, as predicted by the event integration account (Luo, Lupiáñez, Funes, & Fu, 2009;Experiment 1). In this study, we combined a double-rectangle cueing task developed by Egly, Driver and Rafal (1994) with the spatial Stroop task used by Lupiáñez and Funes (2005) to separate the role of object-based and space-based attention on spatial codes and to further understand the role of attention in the generation and modulation of spatial codes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues

Luo

Lupiáñez

et al. 2009

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated whether offset cues have the same attentional consequences in the spatial Stroop effect as onset cues. Experiments 1 and 2 compared the attentional effects of onset-offset cues versus offset cues on the spatial Stroop effect, whereas Experiment 3 compared the attentional effects of onset versus offset cues. Across these experiments, independent of cue type (onset-offset or onset vs. offset) and even at long stimulus-onset asynchrony, attentional cueing did not revert into inhibition of return and was modulated by spatial Stroop with greater cueing effects for incongruent arrow's direction and position. In addition, onset-offset or onset and offset cues produced comparable cueing effects in the location-direction congruent condition, and onset-offset or onset cues produced greater facilitation than offset cues in the incongruent condition. From a different perspective, peripheral cueing modulated the spatial Stroop effect in the same direction for onset-offset or onset and offset cues, although the reduction in spatial Stroop at cued locations was smaller with offset than with onset-offset or onset cues.

show abstract

Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Perceptual grouping of objects occupied by target and flankers affects target-flanker interference

Perceptual grouping of objects occupied by target and flankers affects target-flanker interference

Textures shape the attentional focus: Evidence from exogenous and endogenous cueing

Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About