The negative compatibility effect: A case for self-inhibition

Schlaghecken, Friederike; Rowley, Laura; Sembi, Sukhdev; Simmons, Rachel; Whitcomb, Daniel J.

doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0027-y

Cited by 47 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(107 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Speculating as to what these might be more broadly, these might include the basic processing operations needed to produce (spatial) inhibitory after-effects as highlighted by Fitzgeorge et al (2011); including location discrimination, the idea that a stimulus event will retrieve its related response if one exists, and the automatic self-inhibition of unintended response activations in direct access systems (Schlaghecken, Rowley, Sembi, Simmons, & Whitcomb, 2007).…”

Section: The Perceptual Processing Of Centrally Delivered Events Doesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

Buckolz¹,

Fitzgeorge²,

Knowles³

2012

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The view persists that the inhibition of return (IOR) and the spatial negative priming (SNP) phenomena may be produced by a common "orientation inhibition" mechanism (e.g., Christie & Klein, 2001), held to arise during the processing of peripherally delivered (parafoveal) visual events. Both IOR and SNP effects are present when responding to recently to-be-ignored distractor events is delayed. Since an SNP effect has been produced using centrally located distracters (visual angle of about 2.5˚ or less), a common mechanism view would require that these locations generate orientation inhibition, which then cause of the SNP effect. We report past results and an experiment that reject the common mechanism view. Subjects completed four tasks; two, 1-response tasks, using either central (Task 1) or peripheral (Task 2: IOR) event locations, and two, 4-response tasks, again, using central (Task 3: SNP-central) or peripheral (Task 4: SNP-peripheral) locations. Trials occurred in pairs; first the prime (a target or a distractor), then the probe (target only). Critically, neither distractor-nor target-occupied prime locations produced either inhibitory (SNP effect) or positive after-effects, respectively, in Task 1. Seemingly, centrally located events do not generate orientation inhibition and so, unlike the IOR effect, this inhibition does not cause the SNP-central phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: The Perceptual Processing Of Centrally Delivered Events Doesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

Buckolz¹,

Fitzgeorge²,

Knowles³

2012

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If this were not the case, then the prerequisite activation of the associated response, which is needed for an impact of the response locus to be observed (see Schlaghecken, Rowley, Sembi, Simmons, & Whitcomb, 2007) would be lacking. We thoroughly analyzed the probe errors to address this possibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial negative priming: In touch, it’s all about location

Wesslein

Spence

Mast

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial negative priming (SNP) refers to the finding that responses to stimuli that are presented from previously ignored locations are slowed relative to responses to stimuli presented from previously unstimulated locations. To date, this effect has been demonstrated in vision, audition, and touch. Importantly, however, the cognitive processes involved differ between vision and audition. Although SNP is attributable to feature mismatch in the auditory modality, it is primarily caused by response inhibition in vision. To date, the locus of SNP in touch has not been established, though recently it has been shown that tactile SNP is not modulated by feature mismatch. Here, we demonstrate that in touch, as compared to vision and audition, SNP is more sensitive to the location features-and not solely to the response and stimulus features. Thus, in stark contrast to identity-based negative priming, in which responses to previously ignored stimuli (based on the stimulus identity) can be explained by the same mechanisms in all three sensory modalities, SNP would appear to be caused by different processes in each sensory modality, thus suggesting that the processing of the spatial properties of distractors is modality-specific.

show abstract

“…The fundamental concern with this work is that it is now evident that a centrally located precue arrow can also produce automatic orienting (e.g., Mandich, Buckolz, & Polatajko, 2003; also see Taylor & Klein, 2000) and reflexive response activation (e.g., Eimer, 1993Eimer, , 1995Schlaghecken, Rowley, Sembi, Simmons, & Whitcomb, 2007). Hence, it is precarious to conclude that IOR effects, generated subsequent to informative precue arrows, result solely from volitional orienting.…”

Section: Different-side Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Automatic versus volitional orienting and the production of the inhibition-of-return effect.

Fitzgeorge¹,

Buckolz²

2009

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A single, to-be-ignored peripheral flash (i.e., cue) reflexively attracts an orienting response (oculomotor/attention/head turn) that ultimately causes reaction time delays to target stimuli that later arise at this cued location, in relation to when the target appears at a new position (i.e., the inhibition-of-return [IOR] effect). The basic question posed here dealt with whether an IOR effect is also produced following volitional orienting. Results from paired cue-trial stimulations, one a distractor and one a target (nonsalient/salient) event, positioned more or less symmetrically on either side of fixation, supported the net vector model of IOR (R. Klein, J. Christie, & E. P. Morris, 2005). Automatic orienting did not yield an IOR effect at the stimulated positions. When the need to later report cue-trial target location was added, an IOR effect appeared at distractor-occupied, but not at target-occupied, locations. Seemingly, an IOR effect can follow volitional orienting. In this instance, the IOR process seems capable of undergoing modulation; however, such modulation was not evident following automatic orienting.

show abstract

The negative compatibility effect: A case for self-inhibition

Cited by 47 publications

References 43 publications

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

Spatial Negative Priming, but Not Inhibition of Return, with Central (Foveal) Displays

Spatial negative priming: In touch, it’s all about location

Automatic versus volitional orienting and the production of the inhibition-of-return effect.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About