Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Even though there is ample evidence that planning future actions plays a role in attentional processing (e.g., Downing Visual Cognition 11:689–703, 2000; Soto et al., Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:248–342, 2008), it is not clear to what extent planning in itself (rather than the prior experience of the planned actions) controls attention. We suggest that attention can be biased towards stimuli that are associated with instructions for tasks that will be performed in the future even if those tasks have not yet been experienced. We performed two experiments in which participants receive instructions in which some objects were associated with a response (i.e., instructed S-R objects; “Experiment 1”) or a stimulus property (i.e., instructed S-S objects; “Experiment 2”), whereas control objects were not. However, before participants were required to perform the S-R task (“Experiment 1”) or perform an S-S memory task (“Experiment 2”), they performed a visual probe task in which target objects and control objects served as irrelevant cues. Our results show that attention was biased towards the S-R objects (compared to control stimuli) but not to S-S objects. These findings suggest that future plans can bias attention toward specific stimuli, but only when these stimuli are associated with a specific action. We discuss these findings in light of research concerning automatic effects of instructions and theories that view attention as a selection-for-action mechanism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioural and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & D. F. Saunders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hilsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Neurosciences, 16, 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 326–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Falla, S. J., & Hamilton, L. R. (1998). Attentional bias for threatening facial expressions in anxiety: manipulations of stimulus duration. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 737–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1140–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., Vandorpe, S., & Custers, R. (2005). Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 659–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, E. W., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Attentional guidance by working memory overrides salience cues in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1786–1796.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P. E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychological Science, 11, 467–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P. E., & Dodds, C. M. (2004). Competition in visual working memory for control of search. Visual Cognition, 11, 689–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, T., Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Automatic motor activation by mere instruction. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1300–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007a). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologica, 45, 3351–3355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007b). Intentional control of attention: action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hannus, A., Neggers, S. F. W., Cornelissen, F. W., & Bekkering, H. (2004). Selective attention for action: New evidence from visual search studies. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention and performance: attention in action (pp. 131–149), Psychology Press

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson, A., & Campana, G. (2010). Where perception meets memory: a review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 481–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liefooghe, B., Wenke, D., & De Houwer, J. (2012). Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1325–1335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory and Cognition, 22, 657–672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Cohen-Kdoshay, O. (2012). Working memory load but not multitasking eliminates the prepared reflex: further evidence from the adapted flanker paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 139, 309–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: intention-based reflexivity and working-memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran N., Pereg M., Kessler Y., Cole M.W., Braver T.S. (2015). The power of Instructions: proactive configuration of stimulus-response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi:10.1037/a0037190

  • Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F., & Theeuwes, (2006). Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1243–1265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109, 160–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwark, J. D., Dolgov, I., Sandry, J., & Volkman, C. B. (2013). Simultaneous attentional guidance by working-memory and selection history reveals two distinct sources of attention. Acta Psychologica, 144, 269–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Severens, E., Van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119, 159–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto, D., Hodsoll, J., Rotshtein, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 248–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, D., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 730–757.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, D., Humphreys, G. W., & Heinke, D. (2006). Working memory can guide pop-out search. Vision Research, 46, 1010–1018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention and performance XIX (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1470–1480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Pfister, R., & Kiesel, A. (2013). Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval. Pscyhological Research, 77, 611–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., De Houwer, J., De Winne, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2015). Learning through instructions vs. learning through practice: Flanker congruency effects from instructed and applied S-R mappings. Psychological Research.

  • Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2007). Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research, 71, 92–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2007). Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 363–377.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by the Special Research Fund (BOF) and Methusalem Grant BOF09/01M00209 of Ghent University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Helen Tibboel, Baptist Liefooghe & Jan De Houwer

Authors
  1. Helen Tibboel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baptist Liefooghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan De Houwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Tibboel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All participants in these studies gave their written informed consent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tibboel, H., Liefooghe, B. & De Houwer, J. Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control. Psychological Research 80, 905–911 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0695-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0695-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation