Failure of the extended contingent attentional capture account in multimodal settings

• Authors: Rob H. J. Van der Lubbe , Jurjen Van der Helden

Abstracts

EN

Sudden changes in our environment like sound bursts or light flashes are thought to automatically attract our attention thereby affecting responses to subsequent targets, although an alternative view (the contingent attentional capture account) holds that stimuli only capture our attention when they match target features. In the current study, we examined whether an extended version of the latter view can explain exogenous cuing effects on speed and accuracy of performance to targets (uncued-cued) in multimodal settings, in which auditory and visual stimuli co-occur. To this end, we determined whether observed effects of visual and auditory cues, which were always intermixed, depend on top-down settings in "pure" blocks, in which only one target modality occurred, as compared to "mixed" blocks, in which targets were either visual or auditory. Results revealed that unimodal and crossmodal cuing effects depend on top-down settings. However, our findings were not in accordance with predictions derived from the extended contingent attentional capture account. Specifically, visual cues showed comparable effects for visual targets in pure and mixed blocks, but also a comparable effect for auditory targets in pure blocks, and most surprisingly, an opposite effect in mixed blocks. The latter result suggests that visual stimuli may distract attention from the auditory modality in case when the modality of the forthcoming target is unknown. The results additionally revealed that the Simon effect, the influence of correspondence or not between stimulus and response side, is modulated by exogenous cues in unimodal settings, but not in crossmodal settings. These findings accord with the view that attention plays an important role for the Simon effect, and additionally questions the directness of links between maps of visual and auditory space.

Keywords

EN

insight; heuristics; representational change with spatial attention; multimodal; mixed-blocked

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2006
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 255-267

Contributors

author

Rob H. J. Van der Lubbe

author

Jurjen Van der Helden

• Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

References

• Abrahamse, E. L., & Van der Lubbe, R. H. J. (submitted). Endogenous orienting modulates the Simon effect.
• Ansorge, U., & Heumann, M. (2003). Top-down contingencies in peripheral cuing: the roles of color and location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 937-948.
• Ansorge, U., & Heumann, M. (2005). Shifts of visuospatial attention to invisible (metacontrast-masked) singletons: Clues from reaction times and event-related potential.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 61-76.
• Berger, A., Henik, A., & Rafal, R. (2005). Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 207-221.
• Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030-1044.
• Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (1999). Can new objects override attentional control settings?Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 727-739.
• Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research, 55, 208-222.
• Hopfinger, J. B., & West, V. M. (2006). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention on cortical visual processing.NeuroImage, 31, 774-789.
• Ivanoff, J., Klein, R. M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2002). Inhibition of return interacts with the Simon effect: An omnibus analysis and its implications.Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 318-327.
• Jaśkowski, P., Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Wauschkuhn, B., Wascher, E., & Verleger, R. (2000). The influence of time pressure and expectancy on response force in an S1-S2 paradigm.Acta Psychologica, 105, 89-105.
• Jaśkowski, P., & Włodarczyk, D. (2005). Task modulation of the effects of brightness on reaction time and response force.International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61, 98-112
• Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-146.
• Lupiáñez, J., Miliken, B., Solano, C., Weaver, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2001). On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 753-773.
• Mazza, V., Turatto, M., Rossi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2006). How automatic are audiovisual links in exogenous spatial attention?Neuropsychologia
• McCormick, P. A. (1997). Orienting of attention without awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 168-180.
• McDonald, J. J., & Ward, L. M. (2000). Involuntary listening aids seeing: evidence from human electrophysiology.Psychological Science, 11, 167-171.
• Posner, M. I., Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In: Bouma H, Bouwhuis DG (eds).Attention and performance X.Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 531-555.
• Rodway, P. (2005). The modality shift effect and the effectiveness of warning signals in different modalities.Acta Psychologica, 120, 199-226.
• Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R, Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1353-1364.
• Santangelo, V., Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Olivetti Belardinelli, M., & Postma, A. (2006). Spatial attention triggered by unimodal, crossmodal, and bimodal exogenous cues: a comparison of reflexive orienting mechanisms.Experimental Brain Research, 173, 40-48.
• Schmitt, M., Postma A., & De Haan E. (2000). Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 105-130.
• Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In: Proctor, R. W, and Reeve, T. G. (Eds.).Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective(pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 261-267.
• Spence, C. J., & Driver, J. (1994). Covert spatial orienting in audition: Exogenous and endogenous mechanism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 335-374.
• Spence, C. J., & Driver, J. (1997a). Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1-122.
• Spence, C. J., & Driver, J. (1997b). On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality.Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 384-403.
• Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83-90.
• Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and PerformanceXVIII, (pp 105-125), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
• Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E. (1998). Our eyes do not always go where we want them to go: Capture of the eyes by new objects.Psychological Science, 9, 379-385.
• Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (1999). Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1595-1608.
• Turatto, M., Benso, F., Galfano, G., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Nonspatial attentional shifts between audition and vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 628-639.
• Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Bridgeman, B., & Umiltà, C. (2004). Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems.Experimental Brain Research, 155, 301-310.
• Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992).Selective attention in vision.Routledge: London, New York.
• Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (2004).Attention in vision. Perception, communication and action.Psychology Press: Hove, New York.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Havik, M. M., Bekker, E. M., & Postma, A. (2006). Task-dependent exogenous cuing effects depend on cue modality.Psychophysiology, 43, 145-160.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Keuss, P. J. G., & Stoffels, E.-J. (1996). Threefold effect of peripheral precues: alertness, orienting, and response tendencies.Acta Psychologica, 94, 107-118.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Neggers, S. F. W., Verleger, R., & Kenemans, J. L. (2006). Spatiotemporal overlap between brain activation related to saccade preparation and attentional orienting.Brain Research, 1072, 133-152.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Postma, A. (2005). Interruption from irrelevant auditory and visual onsets even when attention is in a focused state.Experimental Brain Research, 164, 464-471.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Vogel, R. O., & Postma, A. (2005). Different effects of exogenous cues in a visual detection and discrimination task. Delayed attention withdrawal and/or speeded motor inhibition?Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1829-1840.
• Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Woestenburg, J. C. (1999). The influence of peripheral cues on the tendency to react towards a lateral relevant stimulus with multiple-item arrays.Biological Psychology, 51, 1-21.
• Ward, L. M., McDonald, J. J., & Lin, D. (2000). On asymmetries in cross-modal spatial attention orienting.Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1258-1264.
• Wu, S.-C., & Remington, R. W. (2003). Characteristics of covert and overt visual orienting: evidence from attentional and oculomotor capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1050-1067.
• Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121-134.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0060-x