Response Selection in Visual Search: The Influence of Response Compatibility of Nontargets.

Starreveld, Peter A.; Theeuwes, Jan; Mortier, Karen

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.1.56

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(For related neuroimaging data, see Stewart et al, 2003.) Similar RT effects from incidental stimuli have been found in flanker paradigms (Starreveld, Theeuwes, & Mortier, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…In traditional response-interference paradigms (e.g., flanker paradigms; Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974;Starreveld et al, 2004), distracters are in close proximity to targets (e.g., the letter H or an arrow) and are generally from the same class of stimuli as distracters (e.g., other letters or arrows). Unlike previous paradigms, the stimulus dimensions to be ignored in our experiment were irrelevant to the task at hand, making them more representative of the kinds of ambient stimuli (e.g., street signs, advertisements, tools, persons) that are of interest to the social psychologist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The perversity of Inanimate Objects: Stimulus Control by Incidental Musical Notation

Levine

Morsella²,

Bargh³

2007

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social cognition research suggests that incidental, environmental stimuli (e.g., business suits) can nonconsciously influence the degree to which behavioral dispositions (e.g., competitiveness) are expressed. Similarly, cognitive research suggests that incidental action-related objects (e.g., hammers) can prime action plans that then affect the speed with which a concurrent, intended action (e.g., power grip) is executed. However, whether incidental stimuli can instigate actions that run counter to one's current goals has yet to be determined. Moving beyond indirect effects, we show that such stimuli can directly cause the expression of undesired actions: Incidental stimuli resembling musical notation caused the systematic expression of unintended key presses in musicians, but not in nonmusicians. Moreover, the effect was found even when targets and distracters bore no apparent perceptual or semantic relation. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of action production and for social-cognitive concepts (e.g., applicability) regarding the limits of nonconscious processing.Can the objects that once held "stimulus control" over us (e.g., tools or musical notation) reexert their influence against our will in a novel context? For example, when flicking a switch in a tool shed with one hand, can the movements of the other, "idle" hand be influenced by the mere presence of the tools comprising the visual scene? Although these questions have never been addressed empirically, convergent findings from social psychology, cognition, and neuropsychology

show abstract

“…(For related neuroimaging data, see Stewart et al, 2003.) Similar RT effects from incidental stimuli have been found in flanker paradigms (Starreveld, Theeuwes, & Mortier, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perversity of Inanimate Objects: Stimulus Control by Incidental Musical Notation

Levine

Morsella²,

Bargh³

2007

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, it is also possible that distractor line orientation did not directly bypass attention, but that it was modulated by attention. Line orientation compatibility effects are expected to be stronger when attention is deployed to the distractor, because allocating spatial attention to the distractor will lead to processing of the orientation of the gray nontarget line inside the distractor, whereas the line orientation inside the distractor will mostly be ignored when attention is not deployed to the distractor (e.g., Becker, 2007;Starreveld, Theeuwes, & Mortier, 2004;Theeuwes & Burger, 1998). The finding of stronger distractor line effects for relevant color distractors and for distractors with stronger spatial interference effects is thus not unexpected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic priming of attentional control by relevant colors

Ansorge

Becker

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested whether color word cues automatically primed attentional control settings during visual search, or whether color words were used in a strategic manner for the control of attention. In Experiment 1, we used color words as cues that were informative or uninformative with respect to the target color. Regardless of the cue's informativeness, distractors similar to the color cue captured more attention. In Experiment 2, the participants either indicated their expectation about the target color or recalled the last target color, which was uncorrelated with the present target color. We observed more attentional capture by distractors that were similar to the participants' predictions and recollections, but no difference between effects of the recollected and predicted colors. In Experiment 3, we used 100%-informative word cues that were congruent with the predicted target color (e.g., the word "red" informed that the target would be red) or incongruent with the predicted target color (e.g., the word "green" informed that the target would be red) and found that informative incongruent word cues primed attention capture by a word-similar distractor. Together, the results suggest that word cues (Exps. 1 and 3) and color representations (Exp. 2) primed attention capture in an automatic manner. This indicates that color cues automatically primed temporary adjustments in attention control settings.

show abstract

“…Therefore, if the meaning of a distractor word in a search task influences performance when parallel search is evident (i.e., flat slope), this would provide strong evidence for the obligatory nature of visual word recognition. In contrast, if that same word does not influence performance when search is efficient, one would conclude that this attribute of the distractor (i.e., semantics) was not processed in parallel or available (e.g., Starreveld, Theeuwes, & Mortier, 2004 Visual word recognition is commonly argued to be automatic in the sense that it is obligatory and ballistic. The present experiments combined Stroop and visual search paradigms to provide a novel test of this claim.…”

Section: Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory?

Risko

Stolz

Besner

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A skilled reader is typically familiar with about 30,000 words and can recognize a visually presented word in less than half a second (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989). A major approach to understanding this degree of fluency assumes that visual word recognition is automatic. As such, visual word recognition is argued to be obligatory and ballistic, in that it is triggered by the appearance of the stimulus in the visual field and runs to completion (i.e., activates semantics) independently of the observer's intentions. For example, Brown, Gore, and Carr (2002) asserted that Visual word recognition is largely obligatory, in the sense that lexical processing is initiated by the presence of a word in the visual field. (p. 236) Thus, a lexical object, present in the visual field, always activates its semantic representation in long-term memory. We therefore can expect that an obligatory process is (1) independent of spatial attention and (2) independent of the mental set of the participant, where mental set is defined as a state of preparedness, determined by context or the person's experience.The Stroop effect is often cited as strong evidence for the obligatory nature of visual word recognition (Stroop, 1935; see also MacLeod, 1991, for a review). Participants are instructed to identify the display color of a letter string, and response latencies are longer when the print color and the color word are incongruent (e.g., the word red in blue), relative to when they are congruent (e.g., the word blue in blue) or neutral (e.g., the word house in blue). This result is interpreted as support for the hypothesis that visual word recognition is outside the control of the observer. The present investigation combines Stroop and visual search paradigms to provide a novel test of this claim. Visual SearchIn a visual search task, participants determine whether a target item is present among a set of distractors. Search times vary from efficient (response time [RT] ϫ set size slope ഠ 0 msec/item) to very inefficient (RT ϫ set size slope Ͼ 30 msec/item; see Wolfe, 1998). Targets producing efficient searches (e.g., featural singletons) are said to be processed in parallel across space, in that focused attention is not necessary to discriminate them from distractors. In contrast, targets producing inefficient searches (e.g., a conjunction of features) require that participants focus attention on each item in order to make the target /distractor discrimination (Treisman & Gormican, 1988). The efficiency of the search can, therefore, be interpreted as an index of the focused attention devoted to a distractor item. As Treisman and Gelade (1980) noted, if a display is searched in parallel, only those characteristics of the distractor items whose processing does not require spatial attention will influence responses to the target item. Therefore, if the meaning of a distractor word in a search task influences performance when parallel search is evident (i.e., flat slope), this would provide strong evidence for the obligatory nature of visual...

show abstract

Response Selection in Visual Search: The Influence of Response Compatibility of Nontargets.

Cited by 18 publications

References 73 publications

The perversity of Inanimate Objects: Stimulus Control by Incidental Musical Notation

The perversity of Inanimate Objects: Stimulus Control by Incidental Musical Notation

Automatic priming of attentional control by relevant colors

Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About