Limits...
Dissociating compatibility effects and distractor costs in the additional singleton paradigm.

Folk CL - Front Psychol (2013)

Bottom Line: The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory.For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects.However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Villanova University Villanova, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory. However, compatibility effects have also played a role in the debate over the extent to which the involuntary allocation of spatial attention (i.e., attentional capture) is completely stimulus-driven or whether it is contingent on top-down control settings. For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects. This combination of search costs and compatibility effects has been taken as evidence that spatial attention is indeed allocated in a bottom-up fashion to the salient but irrelevant singletons. However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention. In the present experiments, manipulations of load were incorporated into the traditional additional singleton paradigm. Under low-load conditions, both search costs and compatibility effects were obtained, replicating previous studies. Under high-load conditions, search costs were still present, but compatibility effects were eliminated. This dissociation suggests that the costs associated with irrelevant singletons may reflect filtering processes rather than the allocation of spatial attention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean response time as a function of display size and distractor type in Experiments 2a (right panel), 2b (middle panel), and 3 (right panel).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713391&req=5

Figure 3: Mean response time as a function of display size and distractor type in Experiments 2a (right panel), 2b (middle panel), and 3 (right panel).

Mentions: Response times as a function of display size and distractor condition are shown in the right panel of Figure 3 and error rates are reported in Table 1. The data were subjected to a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with display size (6, 8) and distractor condition (no distractor, compatible distractor, incompatible distractor) as factors. The only significant effect was a main effect of distractor condition, F(2,38) = 48.68, MSE = 1637, p < 0.0001. To determine if the compatibility of the distractor influenced response time, a separate repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on just those trials containing a distractor, with compatibility and display size as factors. Only the main effect of compatibility was significant, F(1,19) = 20.21, MSE = 716, p < 0.0001.


Dissociating compatibility effects and distractor costs in the additional singleton paradigm.

Folk CL - Front Psychol (2013)

Mean response time as a function of display size and distractor type in Experiments 2a (right panel), 2b (middle panel), and 3 (right panel).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3713391&req=5

Figure 3: Mean response time as a function of display size and distractor type in Experiments 2a (right panel), 2b (middle panel), and 3 (right panel).
Mentions: Response times as a function of display size and distractor condition are shown in the right panel of Figure 3 and error rates are reported in Table 1. The data were subjected to a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA with display size (6, 8) and distractor condition (no distractor, compatible distractor, incompatible distractor) as factors. The only significant effect was a main effect of distractor condition, F(2,38) = 48.68, MSE = 1637, p < 0.0001. To determine if the compatibility of the distractor influenced response time, a separate repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on just those trials containing a distractor, with compatibility and display size as factors. Only the main effect of compatibility was significant, F(1,19) = 20.21, MSE = 716, p < 0.0001.

Bottom Line: The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory.For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects.However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Villanova University Villanova, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory. However, compatibility effects have also played a role in the debate over the extent to which the involuntary allocation of spatial attention (i.e., attentional capture) is completely stimulus-driven or whether it is contingent on top-down control settings. For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects. This combination of search costs and compatibility effects has been taken as evidence that spatial attention is indeed allocated in a bottom-up fashion to the salient but irrelevant singletons. However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention. In the present experiments, manipulations of load were incorporated into the traditional additional singleton paradigm. Under low-load conditions, both search costs and compatibility effects were obtained, replicating previous studies. Under high-load conditions, search costs were still present, but compatibility effects were eliminated. This dissociation suggests that the costs associated with irrelevant singletons may reflect filtering processes rather than the allocation of spatial attention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus