Selective attention versus selection for action: Negative priming is not the result of distractors being unattended

Abstract

Using a novel referent size-selection task, MacDonald, Joordens, and Seergobin (1999;MacDonald & Joordens, 2000) found that negative priming persisted even when participants were encouraged to attend to distractors before selectively responding to targets. This finding suggested that negative priming is not caused by processes that operate on stimuli that are to be ignored in the traditional selective attention sense. Mackintosh, Mathews, and Holden's (2002) attempt to replicate the MacDonald et al. study resulted in the discovery of possible artifacts in the referent size-selection task, thereby making the implications with respect to the role of attention less clear. In the present study, we describe a different method for directing attention to distractors in a negative priming context, one that does not suffer from the same potential artifacts as the referent size-selection task. Our results are consistent with those found by MacDonald et al., in that negative priming persisted even when participants were explicitly encouraged to attend to distractors. Implications are discussed in the context of the related concepts of selective attention (e.g., Broadbent, 1965) versus selection for action (e.g., Allport, 1987).

The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention

“…When the prime and the target word were identical, significant NP was observed. The authors interpreted this finding as evidence against the view that Bselecting against^a prime distractor is a necessary condition for NP to occur (see also Joordens, Betancourt, & Spalek, 2006). Yet, these findings are consistent with the temporaldiscrimination theory because the brief presentation of prime words that are related to the subsequent target words should produce ambiguity regarding the decision of whether the probe target is old or new.…”

“…In particular, in spatial NP tasks, NP can be found even when targets and distractors are presented with a spatial separation of up to 12°of visual angle (Chao & Yeh, 2005; see also Guy & Buckolz, 2007, for evidence showing that targetdistractor distance seems to play no role in spatial NP), whereas in identity NP tasks, NP usually starts to diminish when the target and distractor are separated by no more than 3°of visual angle (e.g., Fox, 1994;Ruthruff & Miller, 1995). In addition, in identity NP tasks, the selection of a target object in the prime displays often seems to be a precondition for NP to occur (though, see Joordens et al, 2006, for an exception; see also the work by Milliken and colleagues, 1998) whereas, in spatial NP tasks, no selection of a target location is needed for NP to occur (Guy, Buckolz, & Pratt, 2004;Park & Kanwisher, 1994). Finally, in tasks in which the identity and spatial features of stimuli were varied, location affected NP irrespective of whether the task was spatial or not whereas identity affected NP only when it was task-relevant (Frings & Wentura, 2006b;Tipper et al, 1994).…”

Temporal negative priming.

“…Prior research indicates that identity-based negative priming may increase if people attend to the distractor (Kahan, Mathis, & Jackson, 2002; MacDonald, Joordens, & Seergobin, 1999; but see Joordens, Betancourt, & Spalek, 2006, for data that indicate the increase in negative priming is not always significant, a point we return to in the General Discussion). For example, negative priming is larger if participants are presented with two words on the prime trial (e.g., “turtle” and “goat”) and must pronounce the word that refers to the larger object (i.e., “goat”) if on the probe trial (e.g., given “flea” and “turtle”) the person must respond to the previously ignored word (i.e., turtle).…”

Threat processing in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Evidence from a modified negative priming task

“…Despite the latter finding of increased NP in the OC group, the authors interpreted their results as suggesting that OCD patients and non-clinical controls perform comparably on NP tasks. However, the novel paradigm devised by the authors may have resulted in artifacts due to unbalanced repetition of the stimuli, resulting in inequalities across conditions (Mackintosh, Mathews, & Holden, 2002;Joordens, Betancourt, & Spalek, 2006). In summary, NP findings in individuals with OCD have been relatively consistent; for short stimulus presentations, researchers have reported deficient NP abilities in this population (e.g., Enright & Beech, 1990, 1993a, 1993b and marginally significant reduced NP (i.e., McNally et al, 2001).…”