Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 26–34 | Cite as

Differential effects of visual-spatial attention on response latency and temporal-order judgment

  • Odmar Neumann
  • Ute Esselmann
  • Werner Klotz
Article

Summary

Theorists from both classical structuralism and modern attention research have claimed that attention to a sensory stimulus enhances processing speed. However, they have used different operations to measure this effect, viz., temporal-order judgment (TOJ) and reaction-time (RT) measurement. We report two experiments that compared the effect of a spatial cue on RT and TOJ. Experiment 1 demonstrated that a nonmasked, peripheral cue (the brief brightening of a box) affected both RT and TOJ. However, the former effect was significantly larger than the latter. A masked cue had a smaller, but reliable, effect on TOJ. In Experiment 2, the effects of a masked cue on RT and TOJ were compared under identical stimulus conditions. While the cue had a strong effect on RT, it left TOJ unaffected. These results suggest that a spatial cue may have dissociable effects on response processes and the processes that lead to a conscious percept. Implications for the concept of direct parameter specification and for theories of visual attention are discussed.

Keywords

Differential Effect Response Latency Visual Attention Processing Speed Stimulus Condition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, D. A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.),Cognitive psychology — new directions (pp. 112–153). London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Allport, D. A. (1989). Visual attention. In M. I. Posner (Ed.),Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 631–681). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bachmann, T. (1989). Microgenesis as traced by the transient pairedforms paradigm.Acta Psychologica, 70, 3–17.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, M. (1983). A comparison of reaction-time and temporal-orderjudgment estimates of latency to sinusoidal gratings.Perception, 12, 7.Google Scholar
  6. Boring, E. G. (1942).Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  7. Bridgeman, B., Kirch, M., & Sperling, A. (1981). Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion.Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 336–342.Google Scholar
  8. Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. (1972). Some characteristics of selective attention in visual perception determined by vocal reaction time.Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 169–171.Google Scholar
  9. Farah, M. J. (in press). The neural bases of visual perception and visual awareness: A critical review. In. C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, R. D. (1990). Selective attention, event perception and the criterion of acceptability principle: Evidence supporting and rejecting the doctrine of prior entry.Human Movement Science, 9, 481–530.Google Scholar
  11. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.Google Scholar
  12. Jacoby, L. L. (in press). Strategic vs. automatic influences of associative context: Process dissociations. In C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mayzner, M. S., & Tresselt, M. E. (1970). Visual information processing with sequential inputs: A general model for sequential blanking, displacement, and overprinting phenomena.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 169, 599–618.Google Scholar
  14. McClelland, J. L. (1978). Perception and masking of wholes and parts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 210–223.Google Scholar
  15. Neumann, O. (1980). Informationsselektion und Handlungssteuerung. Untersuchungen zur Funktionsgrundlage des Stroop-Interferenzphänomens. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Neumann, O. (1982). Experimente zum Fehrer-Raab-Effekt und das Wetterwart-Modell der visuellen Maskierung.Bericht Nr. 24/1982, Psychologisches Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Arbeitseinheit Kognitionspsychologie.Google Scholar
  17. Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond Capacity: A functional view of attention. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 361–394). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Neumann, O. (1989). Kognitive Vermittlung und direkte Parameterspezifikation. Zum Problem mentaler Repräsentation in der Wahrnehmung.Sprache und Kognition, 8, 32–49.Google Scholar
  19. Neumann, O. (1990a). Direct parameter specification and the concept of perception.Psychological Research, 52, 207–215.Google Scholar
  20. Neumann, O. (1990b). Visual attention and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 227–267). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Neumann, O. (1992a). Theorien der Aufmerksamkeit: Von Metaphern zu Mechanismen.Psychologische Rundschau, 43, 1–19.Google Scholar
  22. Neumann, O. (1992b). Konzepte der Aufmerksamkeit. Entstehung, Wandlungen und Funktionen eines psychologischen Begriffs. Habilitationsschrift, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.Google Scholar
  23. Neumann, O. (in press). Theorien der Aufmerksamkeit: Zurück in die fünfziger Jahre? Erwiderung auf Schulz (1993).Psychologische Rundschau Google Scholar
  24. Neumann, O., & Klotz, W. (in press). Motor responses to nonreportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Neumann, O., Koch, R., Niepel, M., & Tappe, Th. (1993). Reaktionszeit und zeitliches Reihenfolgeurteil: Übereinstimmung oder Dissoziation?Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 39, 621–645.Google Scholar
  26. Neumann, O., Niepel, M., Tappe, Th., & Koch, R. (under revision). Temporal order judgment and reaction time to visual and auditory stimuli of different intensities: Further evidence for dissociations. Perception & PsychophysicsGoogle Scholar
  27. Neumann, O., Tappe, Th., & Niepel, M. (submitted). The effect of stimulus intensity and sensory modality on reaction time and temporal order judgment: A survey and an appraisal.Google Scholar
  28. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 32, 3–25.Google Scholar
  29. Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. I. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.),Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.Google Scholar
  31. Rutschmann, R., & Link, R. (1964). Perception of temporal order of stimuli differing in sense mode and simple reaction time.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 18, 345–352.Google Scholar
  32. Sternberg, S., & Knoll, R. L. (1973). The perception of temporal order: Fundamental issues and a general model. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance 4 (pp. 629–685). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sternberg, S., Knoll, R. L., & Zukofsky, P. (1982). Timing by skilled musicians. In D. Deutsch (Ed.),The psychology of music (pp. 181–239). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stelmach, L. B., & Herdman, Ch. M. (1991). Directed attention and perception of temporal order.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 539–550.Google Scholar
  35. Tappe, Th., Niepel, M., & Neumann, O. (in press). A dissociation between reaction time to sinusoidal gratings and temporal order judgment.Perception.Google Scholar
  36. Titchener, E. B. (1908).Lectures on the elementary psychology of feeling and attention. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  37. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memmorial lecture.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.Google Scholar
  38. Treisman, A. (1992). Visual attention and the perception of objects.International Journal of Psychology, 27, 13.Google Scholar
  39. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.Google Scholar
  40. Ulrich, R. (1987). Threshold models of temporal order judgments evaluated by a ternary response task.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 224–239.Google Scholar
  41. Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1990). Visual information processing and selection. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 203–226). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992).Selective attention in vision. London & New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  43. Weiskrantz, L. (1988). Some contributions of neuropsychology of vision and memory to the problem of consciousness. In A. J. Marcel & E. Bisiach (Eds.),Consciousness in contemporary science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Weisstein, N. (1971). W-shaped and U-shaped functions obtained for monoptic and dichoptic disk-disk masking.Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 275–278.Google Scholar
  45. Wolff, P. (1977). Entnahme der Identitäts- und Positions-Information bei der Identifikation tachistoskopischer Buchstabenzeilen. Ein theoretischer und experimenteller Beitrag zur Grundlagenforschung des Lesens. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Odmar Neumann
    • 1
  • Ute Esselmann
    • 1
  • Werner Klotz
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung für PsychologieUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations