Limits...
Attentional capture and inhibition of saccades after irrelevant and relevant cues.

Priess HW, Heise N, Fischmeister F, Born S, Bauer H, Ansorge U - J Ophthalmol (2014)

Bottom Line: We found attentional capture not only for, relevant but importantly also for irrelevant stimuli, although the N2pc was stronger for relevant than irrelevant stimuli.In addition, inhibition of saccades was the same for relevant and irrelevant stimuli.We conclude with a discussion of the mechanisms that are responsible for these effects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010 Wien, Austria.

ABSTRACT
Attentional capture is usually stronger for task-relevant than irrelevant stimuli, whereas irrelevant stimuli can trigger equal or even stronger amounts of inhibition than relevant stimuli. Capture and inhibition, however, are typically assessed in separate trials, leaving it open whether or not inhibition of irrelevant stimuli is a consequence of preceding attentional capture by the same stimuli or whether inhibition is the only response to these stimuli. Here, we tested the relationship between capture and inhibition in a setup allowing for estimates of the capture and inhibition based on the very same trials. We recorded saccadic inhibition after relevant and irrelevant stimuli. At the same time, we recorded the N2pc, an event-related potential, reflecting initial capture of attention. We found attentional capture not only for, relevant but importantly also for irrelevant stimuli, although the N2pc was stronger for relevant than irrelevant stimuli. In addition, inhibition of saccades was the same for relevant and irrelevant stimuli. We conclude with a discussion of the mechanisms that are responsible for these effects.

No MeSH data available.


Data from the 50% fastest responses. (a) ERPs (in μVolts on the y-axis) ipsilateral to the relevant cue (solid lines) and contralateral to the relevant cue (dashed lines), as a function of the time since cue onset (at zero) on the x-axis. (b) Same as (a) but for irrelevant cues. (c) Difference waves of contralateral minus ipsilateral activity, separately for relevant cues (solid line) and for irrelevant cues (dashed line).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016893&req=5

fig4: Data from the 50% fastest responses. (a) ERPs (in μVolts on the y-axis) ipsilateral to the relevant cue (solid lines) and contralateral to the relevant cue (dashed lines), as a function of the time since cue onset (at zero) on the x-axis. (b) Same as (a) but for irrelevant cues. (c) Difference waves of contralateral minus ipsilateral activity, separately for relevant cues (solid line) and for irrelevant cues (dashed line).

Mentions: Recently, McDonald and colleagues [2] showed that irrelevant distractors elicited a Pd among the fastest responses. We therefore also repeated our ANOVA of the activity at P3 and P4, with only the fastest 50% of the saccades and the two within-participant variables cue type (relevant or irrelevant cue), and laterality (electrode ipsi- or contralateral to the first cue). Again, activity was more negative at contra- than ipsilateral electrodes, (1, 10) = 11.16, p < .05. This time, however, the interaction was far from significant, F < 1. In contrast to the findings of McDonald et al. [2], a more prominent N2pc rather than a Pd was observed with the irrelevant singleton cues during the fastest responses. This can also be seen by looking at Figure 4.


Attentional capture and inhibition of saccades after irrelevant and relevant cues.

Priess HW, Heise N, Fischmeister F, Born S, Bauer H, Ansorge U - J Ophthalmol (2014)

Data from the 50% fastest responses. (a) ERPs (in μVolts on the y-axis) ipsilateral to the relevant cue (solid lines) and contralateral to the relevant cue (dashed lines), as a function of the time since cue onset (at zero) on the x-axis. (b) Same as (a) but for irrelevant cues. (c) Difference waves of contralateral minus ipsilateral activity, separately for relevant cues (solid line) and for irrelevant cues (dashed line).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016893&req=5

fig4: Data from the 50% fastest responses. (a) ERPs (in μVolts on the y-axis) ipsilateral to the relevant cue (solid lines) and contralateral to the relevant cue (dashed lines), as a function of the time since cue onset (at zero) on the x-axis. (b) Same as (a) but for irrelevant cues. (c) Difference waves of contralateral minus ipsilateral activity, separately for relevant cues (solid line) and for irrelevant cues (dashed line).
Mentions: Recently, McDonald and colleagues [2] showed that irrelevant distractors elicited a Pd among the fastest responses. We therefore also repeated our ANOVA of the activity at P3 and P4, with only the fastest 50% of the saccades and the two within-participant variables cue type (relevant or irrelevant cue), and laterality (electrode ipsi- or contralateral to the first cue). Again, activity was more negative at contra- than ipsilateral electrodes, (1, 10) = 11.16, p < .05. This time, however, the interaction was far from significant, F < 1. In contrast to the findings of McDonald et al. [2], a more prominent N2pc rather than a Pd was observed with the irrelevant singleton cues during the fastest responses. This can also be seen by looking at Figure 4.

Bottom Line: We found attentional capture not only for, relevant but importantly also for irrelevant stimuli, although the N2pc was stronger for relevant than irrelevant stimuli.In addition, inhibition of saccades was the same for relevant and irrelevant stimuli.We conclude with a discussion of the mechanisms that are responsible for these effects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010 Wien, Austria.

ABSTRACT
Attentional capture is usually stronger for task-relevant than irrelevant stimuli, whereas irrelevant stimuli can trigger equal or even stronger amounts of inhibition than relevant stimuli. Capture and inhibition, however, are typically assessed in separate trials, leaving it open whether or not inhibition of irrelevant stimuli is a consequence of preceding attentional capture by the same stimuli or whether inhibition is the only response to these stimuli. Here, we tested the relationship between capture and inhibition in a setup allowing for estimates of the capture and inhibition based on the very same trials. We recorded saccadic inhibition after relevant and irrelevant stimuli. At the same time, we recorded the N2pc, an event-related potential, reflecting initial capture of attention. We found attentional capture not only for, relevant but importantly also for irrelevant stimuli, although the N2pc was stronger for relevant than irrelevant stimuli. In addition, inhibition of saccades was the same for relevant and irrelevant stimuli. We conclude with a discussion of the mechanisms that are responsible for these effects.

No MeSH data available.