Proactive and reactive sequential effects on selective attention

Sætrevik, Bjørn; Huster, René J.; Herrmann, Christoph S.

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.06.003

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, response patterns representing different resolutions of the conflict correlated with different activation patterns. An electroencephalography (EEG) study (Sætrevik, Huster & Hermann, submitted) showed that negative priming responses correlated with electrophysiological effects co‐occurring with both the first and the second presentation of a repeated stimulus, indicating that the interaction between prime and target processing determines priming. One study (Sætrevik & Hugdahl, 2007a) combined the primed dichotic listening task with a sound cue preceding the prime, and showed that the negative priming effect interacted with intended selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating and inhibiting effects of priming and selection criteria in a sequence of dichotic listening trials

Sætrevik

2012

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competing models of attention make different predictions of how priming from recent stimulus processing could interact with intended selection. The present experiment examined the interaction between exogenous attention and endogenous priming across trial sequences. A sound cue directed attention to left, right or both sides before a dichotic syllable pair was presented. Participants were asked to report one syllable from each trial. Results showed that responses were slower on trials where one of the presented syllables had also been presented on the previous trial. Within these trials, the repeated syllable was selected less frequently, and the responses doing so were slower. Examined according to response choice on the preceding trial, syllables that had been ignored on the preceding trial tended to be ignored on the current trial (negative priming), while syllables that had been selected on the preceding trial tended to be selected on the current trial (positive priming). Responses that followed these selection biases were faster than responses that did not. Response selection was also influenced by the attention direction cue for the current trial, but not by the cue presented on the preceding trial. The results support an attentional model where traces from the preceding processing are retained, and current selection is biased to minimize cognitive conflict between recent and current processing. Negative priming appears to be due to after-effects of preceding processing, independently of the intentions behind that processing. The study accounts for positive and negative priming of dichotic listening sequences within an established, computationally viable biased competition framework.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%