Cue-target contingencies modulate voluntary orienting of spatial attention: dissociable effects for speed and accuracy

  • Mario Bonato
  • Matteo Lisi
  • Sara Pegoraro
  • Gilles Pourtois
Original Article
  • 162 Downloads

Abstract

Voluntary orienting of spatial attention is typically investigated by visually presented directional cues, which are called predictive when they indicate where the target is more likely to appear. In this study, we investigated the nature of the potential link between cue predictivity (the proportion of valid trials) and the strength of the resulting covert orienting of attention. Participants judged the orientation of a unilateral Gabor grating preceded by a centrally presented, non-directional, color cue, arbitrarily prompting a leftwards or rightwards shift of attention. Unknown to them, cue predictivity was manipulated across blocks, whereby the cue was only predictive for either the first or the second half of the experiment. Our results show that the cueing effects were strongly influenced by the change in predictivity. This influence differently emerged in response speed and accuracy. The speed difference between valid and invalid trials was significantly larger when cues were predictive, and the amplitude of this effect was modulated at the single trial level by the recent trial history. Complementary to these findings, accuracy revealed a robust effect of block history and also a different time-course compared with speed, as if it mainly mirrored voluntary processes. These findings, obtained with a new manipulation and using arbitrary non-directional cueing, demonstrate that cue-target contingencies strongly modulate the way attention is deployed in space.

Notes

Acknowledgments

MB was funded by an FWO Pegasus/Marie Curie IEF Fellowship within the 7th framework program (Project 625378 “SpaceLOAD”. GP is funded by the Special Research Fund from Ghent University and by the Belgian Science Policy, Interuniversity Attraction Poles program (P7/11). The authors are grateful to Marco Zorzi for providing access to lab facilities and to two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript. MB is grateful to Carlo Umiltà for valuable discussions on the study and to L. Naert & H. Park for proofreading.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

MB was funded by a FWO Pegasus/Marie Curie IEF Fellowship within the 7th framework program (Project 625378 “SpaceLOAD”).

Conflict of interest

MB declares that he has no conflict of interest. ML declares that he has no conflict of interest. SP declares that she has no conflict of interest. GP declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

426_2016_818_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 693–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamia, A., Orban de Xivry, J. J., San Anton, E., Olivier, E., Cleeremans, A., & Zenon, A. (2016). Unconscious associative learning with conscious cues. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 1–10. doi: 10.1093/nc/niw016
  3. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 437–443.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartolomeo, P., Decaix, C., & Siéroff, E. (2007). The phenomenology of endogenous orienting. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 144–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.
  6. Bonato, M. (2012). Neglect and extinction depend greatly on task demands: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 195.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonato, M. (2015). Unveiling residual, spontaneous recovery from subtle hemispatial neglect three years after stroke. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 413.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., & Zorzi, M. (2009). Normal and impaired reflexive orienting of attention after central nonpredictive cues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 745–759.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964a). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statisistical Society, Series B, 26, 211–246.Google Scholar
  10. Box, G. E. P., & Cox, R. (1964b). An Analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252.Google Scholar
  11. Braem, S., Hickey, C., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Reward determines the context-sensitivity of cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1769–1778. doi: 10.1037/a0037554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Chica, A. B., & Bartolomeo, P. (2010). Unconscious strategies? Commentary on Risko and Stolz (2010): The proportion valid effect in covert orienting: Strategic control or implicit learning? Consciousness and Cognition, 91, 443–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chica, A. B., Martín-Arévalo, E., Botta, F., & Lupiáñez, J. (2014). The Spatial Orienting paradigm: how to design and interpret spatial attention experiments. Neuroscience & Biobehavioural Reviews, 40, 35–51. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2011). Spatial neglect and attention networks. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 569–599.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.Google Scholar
  17. Cutini, S., Scatturin, P., Menon, E., Bisiacchi, P. S., Gamberini, L., Zorzi, M., & Dell’Acqua, R. (2008). Selective activation of the superior frontal gyrus in task-switching: an event-related fNIRS study. NeuroImage, 42, 945–955.Google Scholar
  18. Dobbins, I. G. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428, 316–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dombert, P. L., Fink, G. R., & Vossel, S. (2016). The impact of probabilistic feature cueing depends on the level of cue abstraction. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 685–694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Doricchi, F., Macci, E., Silvetti, M., & Macaluso, E. (2010). Neural correlates of the spatial and expectancy components of endogenous and stimulus-driven orienting of attention in the posner task. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 1574–1585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1), 54–75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2245500.
  23. Eimer, M. (1997). Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 46, 67–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuchs, I., & Ansorge, U. (2012). Unconscious cueing via the superior colliculi: Evidence from searching for onset and color targets. Brain Sciences, 2, 33–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, I., Ansorge, U., Huber-Huber, C., Höflich, A., & Lanzenberger, R. (2015). S-ketamine influences strategic allocation of attention but not exogenous capture of attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 282–294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. N., & Yantis, S. (1995). Allocating visual attention: Tests of a two-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1376–1390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kaernbach, C. (1991). Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Perception and Psychophysics, 49(3), 227–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinoshita, S., Mozer, M. C., & Forster, K. I. (2011). Dynamic adaptation to history of trial difficulty explains the effect of congruency proportion on masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 622–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koshino, H., Warner, C. B., & Juola, J. F. (1992). Relative effectiveness of central, peripheral, and abrupt-onset cues in visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(4), 609–631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambert, A., Naikar, N., McLachlan, K., & Aitken, V. (1999). A new component of visual orienting: Implicit effects of peripheral information and subthreshold cues on covert attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 321–340.Google Scholar
  34. Lambert, A., Roser, M., Wells, I., & Heffer, C. (2006). The spatial correspondence hypothesis and orienting in response to central and peripheral spatial cues. Visual Cognition, 13(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. López-Ramón, M. F., Chica, A. B., Bartolomeo, P., & Lupiáñez, J. (2011). Attentional orienting and awareness: Evidence from a discrimination task. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 745–755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Losier, B. J., & Klein, R. M. (2001). A review of the evidence for a disengage deficit following parietal lobe damage. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 1–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Macaluso, E., & Doricchi, F. (2013). Attention and predictions: control of spatial attention beyond the endogenous-exogenous dichotomy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience., 7, 685. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00685.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Melloni, L., Schwiedrzik, C. M., Müller, N., Rodriguez, E., & Singer, W. (2011). Expectations change the signatures and timing of electrophysiological correlates of perceptual awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 1386–1396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelder, J. A. (1977). A reformulation of linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 140, 48–77. doi: 10.2307/2344517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olk, B., Hildebrandt, H., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Involuntary but not voluntary orienting contributes to a disengage deficit in visual neglect. Cortex, 46, 1149–1164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson, S. A., & Gibson, T. N. (2011). Implicit attentional orienting in a target detection task with central cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1532–1547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/b98882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Prinzmetal, W., & Landau, A. N. (2008). Dissecting spatial visual attention. In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Tutorials in visual cognition (pp. 43–66). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  46. Prinzmetal, W., McCool, C., & Park, S. (2005). Attention: Reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/.
  48. Rafal, R., & Henik, A. (1994). The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes. In D. Dagenbach, & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rieth, C. A., & Huber, D. E. (2013). Implicit learning of spatiotemporal contingencies in spatial cueing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1165–1180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Risko, E. F., Blais, C., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2008a). Covert orienting: A compound-cue account of the proportion cued effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 123–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Risko, E. F., Blais, C., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2008b). Nonstrategic contributions to putatively strategic effects in selective attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1044–1052.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Risko, E. F., & Stolz, J. A. (2010a). The proportion valid effect in covert orienting: Strategic control or implicit learning? Consciousness and Cognition, 91, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Risko, E.F., & Stolz, J. A. (2010b). On the nature of cognitive control and endogenous orienting: A response to Chica and Bartolomeo (2010). Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 445–446.Google Scholar
  54. Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Attention to arrows: Pointing to a new direction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1921–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmidt, J. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 615–630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Tassinari, G., Aglioti, S., Chelazzi, L., Marzi, C. A., & Berlucchi, G. (1987). Distribution in the visual field of the costs of voluntarily allocated attention and of the inhibitory after-effects of covert orienting. Neuropsychologia, 25, 55–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 314–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Venables, W. N. (1998). Exegeses on linear models. Paper presented to the S- Plus User’s Conference. Washington DC, October 8–9, 1998.Google Scholar
  60. Vossel, S., Bauer, M., Mathys, C., Adams, R. A., Dolan, R. J., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J. (2014). Cholinergic stimulation enhances Bayesian belief updating in the deployment of spatial attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 15735–15742.Google Scholar
  61. Vossel, S., Mathys, C., Daunizeau, J., Bauer, M., Driver, J., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E. (2014). Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: A study of saccadic response speed. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1436–1450.Google Scholar
  62. Wansard, M., Bartolomeo, P., Vanderaspoilden, V., Geurten, M., & Meulemans T. (2015). Can the exploration of left space be induced implicitly in unilateral neglect? Consciousness and Cognition, 31, 115–123.Google Scholar
  63. Zhao, J., Al-Aidroos, N., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2013). Attention is spontaneously biased toward regularities. Psychological Science, 24, 667–677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception (CNRS UMR 8242)ParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of Experimental Clinical and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations