Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control
- 308 Downloads
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.
KeywordsTarget Object Attentional Bias Congruency Effect Attentional Processing Incongruent Trial
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.
All participants in these studies gave their written informed consent.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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