2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.08.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantic incongruity attracts attention at a pre-conscious level: Evidence from a TMS study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More simply, our conflict condition makes participants do more high-level attentional work, and in our semantic priming conditions, this work is directly focused on the meaning or essential category information of the stimulus itself. In contrast, in the change blindness studies (Ortiz-Tudela et al., 2017, 2018), the incongruent condition provides a strong automatic (and presumably rapid, pre-volitional) cue, both that something does not match, and also possibly a spatial cue to where the contextually inappropriate object is in the scene. In this case, it is the congruent condition that requires more deliberate attentional work and controlled processing to find the changing object.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…More simply, our conflict condition makes participants do more high-level attentional work, and in our semantic priming conditions, this work is directly focused on the meaning or essential category information of the stimulus itself. In contrast, in the change blindness studies (Ortiz-Tudela et al., 2017, 2018), the incongruent condition provides a strong automatic (and presumably rapid, pre-volitional) cue, both that something does not match, and also possibly a spatial cue to where the contextually inappropriate object is in the scene. In this case, it is the congruent condition that requires more deliberate attentional work and controlled processing to find the changing object.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…A more stage- and process-specific approach to considering conflict effects on memory may also help us align other recent findings in this emerging literature. Several recent studies (Ortiz-Tudela et al., 2017, 2018) have shown what on the surface appears to be an opposite memory effect of incongruency for objects displayed in congruent versus incongruent background scene contexts – incongruent items were quicker to be identified and localized (though with more error) in a change detection task, but showed worse later memory compared to congruent items. The authors discuss their findings as being at odds with theories of conflict-elicited learning (Verguts and Notebaert, 2008, 2009), but compatible with more general principles such as desirable difficulty or depth of processing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using a spatial-probe method, for instance, Gordon (2004) demonstrated that within a short visual glance, attention is preferentially allocated to contextually inconsistent objects rather than to consistent objects within a scene. Furthermore, studies using the change detection flicker paradigm (Rensink et al, 1997) have repeatedly shown an earlier detection of a rapid change to inconsistent than to consistent objects (Hollingworth & Henderson, 2000;LaPointe & Milliken, 2016;Mack et al, 2017;Ortiz-Tudela et al, 2017). Interestingly, however, opposite findings (in which a consistency advantage was observed) have been obtained when object identification rather than mere detection was assessed (LaPointe et al, 2013;Mack et al, 2017;Ortiz-Tudela et al, 2017).…”
Section: Processing Scene-object Associative Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, studies using the change detection flicker paradigm (Rensink et al, 1997) have repeatedly shown an earlier detection of a rapid change to inconsistent than to consistent objects (Hollingworth & Henderson, 2000;LaPointe & Milliken, 2016;Mack et al, 2017;Ortiz-Tudela et al, 2017). Interestingly, however, opposite findings (in which a consistency advantage was observed) have been obtained when object identification rather than mere detection was assessed (LaPointe et al, 2013;Mack et al, 2017;Ortiz-Tudela et al, 2017). And yet, studies using eye movement measures have further provided evidence that scene-object inconsistencies may attract eye fixations when a contextually inconsistent object appears at an extrafoveal location (Becker et al, 2007;Bonitz & Gordon, 2008;Cornelissen & Võ, 2017;LaPointe & Milliken, 2016;Loftus & Mackworth, 1978;Underwood & Foulsham, 2006;Underwood et al, 2008; see VISUAL-SEMANTIC ASSOCIATIVE PROCESSING AND ATTENTION 9 also Brockmole & Henderson, 2008).…”
Section: Processing Scene-object Associative Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other evidence, however, has demonstrated that incongruent, schema-inconsistent information is sometimes remembered better, likely because of its novelty. Accordingly, several studies have highlighted that out-of-context targets tend to capture attentional resources ([ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]; though, for inconsistent findings, see [ 43 , 44 ]). Contextually mismatching objects are also more likely to be retrieved successfully after a short delay period [ 42 , 45 , 46 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%