Limits...
Evidence for attentional processing in spatial localization.

Adam JJ, Davelaar EJ, van der Gouw A, Willems P - Psychol Res (2007)

Bottom Line: Using a dual-task methodology, this study examined the involvement of selective attention in spatial localization.Results revealed a robust interference effect in localization performance at short target durations that depended on the number of the to-be-identified distractor items.This outcome provides convergent support for the role of the attentional system in spatial localization.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Movement Sciences, University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jos.adam@bw.unimaas.nl

ABSTRACT
Using a dual-task methodology, this study examined the involvement of selective attention in spatial localization. Thirty participants located a single, briefly presented, peripheral target stimulus, appearing in one of 50 positions on either side of a central fixation point, with or without the requirement to identify a simultaneously presented central distractor stimulus. Results revealed a robust interference effect in localization performance at short target durations that depended on the number of the to-be-identified distractor items. This outcome provides convergent support for the role of the attentional system in spatial localization.

Show MeSH
Mean localization error in the single-task condition for all participants (that is, averaged over all three distractor groups; n = 29) as a function of a target-mask onset delay; b target distance; and c as a function of both target-mask onset delay and target distance. Error bars are standard error
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2367386&req=5

Fig2: Mean localization error in the single-task condition for all participants (that is, averaged over all three distractor groups; n = 29) as a function of a target-mask onset delay; b target distance; and c as a function of both target-mask onset delay and target distance. Error bars are standard error

Mentions: Localization performance was quantified by calculating for each participant mean localization error, defined as the (horizontal) absolute distance between the target location and the response location, as a function of target duration and target distance. Figure 2 shows mean localization error for all 29 participants in the single-task condition (localization only) as a function of target duration (i.e., target-mask onset delay) and target distance. A two-way (target duration × target distance) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that localization performance increased (i.e., localization error decreased) significantly as target duration increased and target distance decreased (F(7, 196) = 96.59, p < 0.001 and F(4, 112) = 50.94, p < 0.001, respectively). In Fig. 2c, it can be seen that with short durations, nearby targets were better localized than distant targets, but that this effect of distance diminishes, and eventually disappears, with longer target durations. This was supported by a significant interaction between target distance and target duration (F(28, 784) = 6.10, p < 0.001).Fig. 2


Evidence for attentional processing in spatial localization.

Adam JJ, Davelaar EJ, van der Gouw A, Willems P - Psychol Res (2007)

Mean localization error in the single-task condition for all participants (that is, averaged over all three distractor groups; n = 29) as a function of a target-mask onset delay; b target distance; and c as a function of both target-mask onset delay and target distance. Error bars are standard error
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2367386&req=5

Fig2: Mean localization error in the single-task condition for all participants (that is, averaged over all three distractor groups; n = 29) as a function of a target-mask onset delay; b target distance; and c as a function of both target-mask onset delay and target distance. Error bars are standard error
Mentions: Localization performance was quantified by calculating for each participant mean localization error, defined as the (horizontal) absolute distance between the target location and the response location, as a function of target duration and target distance. Figure 2 shows mean localization error for all 29 participants in the single-task condition (localization only) as a function of target duration (i.e., target-mask onset delay) and target distance. A two-way (target duration × target distance) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that localization performance increased (i.e., localization error decreased) significantly as target duration increased and target distance decreased (F(7, 196) = 96.59, p < 0.001 and F(4, 112) = 50.94, p < 0.001, respectively). In Fig. 2c, it can be seen that with short durations, nearby targets were better localized than distant targets, but that this effect of distance diminishes, and eventually disappears, with longer target durations. This was supported by a significant interaction between target distance and target duration (F(28, 784) = 6.10, p < 0.001).Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Using a dual-task methodology, this study examined the involvement of selective attention in spatial localization.Results revealed a robust interference effect in localization performance at short target durations that depended on the number of the to-be-identified distractor items.This outcome provides convergent support for the role of the attentional system in spatial localization.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Movement Sciences, University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jos.adam@bw.unimaas.nl

ABSTRACT
Using a dual-task methodology, this study examined the involvement of selective attention in spatial localization. Thirty participants located a single, briefly presented, peripheral target stimulus, appearing in one of 50 positions on either side of a central fixation point, with or without the requirement to identify a simultaneously presented central distractor stimulus. Results revealed a robust interference effect in localization performance at short target durations that depended on the number of the to-be-identified distractor items. This outcome provides convergent support for the role of the attentional system in spatial localization.

Show MeSH