Refining the dual-stage account of intertrial feature priming: Does motor response or response feature matter?

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that repetition of search-relevant attributes facilitates visual search performance. For example, Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) showed that when observers search for a target defined by its color and report its shape, repetition of the target color speeds search, an effect known as priming of pop-out. While intertrial feature priming in search was initially thought to affect perceptual processes, the idea that it also affects postselection stages of processing is increasingly acknowledged. However, because in previous studies repetition of the motor response has typically been confounded with repetition of the response feature, it is not clear what mechanisms underlie the postselection effect of intertrial priming. In the present study, we dissociated the two repetition types. The results showed that repetition of the target-defining attribute from the previous trial affects selection of the motor response but not discrimination of the response attribute. The implications for current accounts of intertrial priming are discussed.Keywords Visual search . Attention . Memory . Repetition effects . Response selection In daily-life situations, observers are required to continuously search the environment and quickly extract relevant information from complex and detailed scenes. A simple example for this is when one searches for a desired product among the diversity of products on a supermarket shelf. At each moment during the search, one has to decide which items to ignore and which to attend to. Without some context of previous decisions the search process would be inefficient, because one would have to make the same decisions over and over again. A mechanism that may provide context and continuity during search is an implicit short-term memory store of previous attentional decisions.

Learning what to expect: context-specific control over intertrial priming effects in singleton search

“…Recent work from our lab however, has shown that the number of trials over which PoP can be measured is strongly affected by contextual reinstatement that is both perceptual (Thomson & Milliken, 2012) and nonperceptual (Thomson & Milliken, in press) in nature, suggesting that retrieval interference may at least partially dictate the magnitude of PoP effects. In addition, recent theoretical accounts of PoP have been forwarded that acknowledge a role for both feed-forward mechanisms, as well as episodic retrieval contributions to the PoP effect (Lamy, Yashar, & Ruderman, 2010;Yashar & Lamy, 2011). As a result, the attentional control over the magnitude of PoP shown in the present work could result from either control over feature weights from one trial to the next or control over event integration, if indeed both such processes contribute to PoP effects.…”

Distinct neural networks for target feature versus dimension changes in visual search, as revealed by EEG and fMRI

“…In line with the response biasing account, reaction times are often faster when both the target and response repeat than when only either the target or the response repeats (e.g., Hillstrom, 2000;Huang & Pashler, 2005;Meeter & Olivers, 2006;Müller & Krummenacher, 2006;Töllner et al, 2008;Yashar & Lamy, 2011). Yet, at least with respect to feature changes, changing the response requirements do not completely eliminate target switch costs, indicating that they cannot be fully accounted for by response biasing (e.g., Hillstrom, 2000;Yashar & Lamy, 2011).…”

“…For example, in a target present/absent search task, changing the target dimension (e.g., from a color to a size target) would automatically create a bias to change the response as well, which would lead to switch costs when the target changes but the instructed response is the same as on the previous trial (e.g., a target present response; Becker, 2008aBecker, , 2010aCohen & Magen, 1999;Mortier, Theeuwes & Starreveld, 2005;Pollmann et al, 2006;Yashar & Lamy, 2011).…”

“…Yet, at least with respect to feature changes, changing the response requirements do not completely eliminate target switch costs, indicating that they cannot be fully accounted for by response biasing (e.g., Hillstrom, 2000;Yashar & Lamy, 2011).…”

“…As a consequence, most researchers to date advocate a dual stage account, which holds that target changes can incur costs both at an early attentional level and at a later, response-selection level (e.g., Meeter & Olivers, 2006, Mortier et al, 2005Rangelov, Müller & Zehetleitner, 2011;Yashar & Lamy, 2011;Zehetleitner, Rangelov, & Müller, 2012).…”