Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 905–911 | Cite as

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

  • Helen TibboelEmail author
  • Baptist Liefooghe
  • Jan De Houwer
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Target Object Attentional Bias Congruency Effect Attentional Processing Incongruent Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 326–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Downing, P. E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychological Science, 11, 467–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Downing, P. E., & Dodds, C. M. (2004). Competition in visual working memory for control of search. Visual Cognition, 11, 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Everaert, T., Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Automatic motor activation by mere instruction. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1300–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007a). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologica, 45, 3351–3355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007b). Intentional control of attention: action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 PressGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 481–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory and Cognition, 22, 657–672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109, 160–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Soto, D., Hodsoll, J., Rotshtein, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 248–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Soto, D., Humphreys, G. W., & Heinke, D. (2006). Working memory can guide pop-out search. Vision Research, 46, 1010–1018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Waszak, F., Pfister, R., & Kiesel, A. (2013). Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval. Pscyhological Research, 77, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2007). Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research, 71, 92–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Tibboel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Baptist Liefooghe
    • 1
  • Jan De Houwer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations