Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negative compatibility effect: the object-updating hypothesis revisited

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prime even if backward masked can affect the reaction to a subsequently presented target. According to the object-updating hypothesis, negative CE (i.e. longer reactions in the compatible than incompatible trials) occurs due to the interaction between prime and a subsequent stimulus (usually a mask or flanker). Its crucial assumption is that only new elements of the mask can affect the response. As the masks are usually composed of figures that call for both possible responses, the masks’ new element calls for a response opposite to that initialized by the prime. Here an experiment is described in which the prime and target were two arrowheads pointing to left or right. Two different flankers were composed from the two heads pointing to the opposite directions. In contrast to the OU hypothesis, NCEs were different for the two flankers. This finding contradicts the OU hypothesis.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One can argue that the OU hypothesis relies merely or primarily on similarity of elements or constituents comprising a configuration rather than on similarity of the (resultant) configuration. It should be, however, noted that in the present experiment, the compatibility effect should be identical for both stimuli, independently of whether the configurations or their elements matter. This is because both the novel configuration and the novel elements are identical for both flankers. Therefore, regardless of whether novel configuration or novel elements drive the participants’ response, the flanker effect should be identical.

References

  • Boy F, Clarke K, Sumner P (2008) Mask stimulus triggers inhibition in subliminal visuomotor priming. Exp Brain Res 190:111–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eimer M, Schlaghecken F (1998) Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:1737–1747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski P (2007) The effect of nonmasking distractors on the priming of motor responses. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:456–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski P (2008) The negative compatibility effect with non-masking flankers. A case for a mask-triggered inhibition hypothesis. Conscious Cogn 17:765–777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski P, Przekoracka-Krawczyk A (2005) On the role of mask structure in subliminal priming. Acta Neurobiol Exp 65:409–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski P, Verleger R (2007) What determines the direction of subliminal priming. Adv Cognitive Psychol 3:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski P, Białuńska A, Tomanek M, Verleger R (2008) Mask- and distractor-triggered inhibitory processes in the priming of motor responses. An EEG study. Psychophysiology 45:70–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lleras A, Enns JT (2004) Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:475–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lleras A, Enns JT (2006) How much like a target can a mask be? Geometric, spatial, and temporal similarity in priming. A reply to Schlaghecken and Eimer (2006). J Exp Psychol Gen 135:495–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaghecken F, Eimer M (2002) Motor activation with and without inhibition: evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control. Percept Psychophys 64:148–162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaghecken F, Eimer M (2006) Active masks and active inhibition: a comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and on Verleger, Jaśkowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). J Exp Psychol Gen 135:484–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner P (2007) Negative and positive masked-priming—implications for motor inhibition. Adv Cognitive Psychol 3:595–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Verleger R, Jaśkowski P, Aydemir A, Van der Lubbe RHJ, Groen M (2004) Qualitative differences between conscious and non-conscious processing? On negative and positive priming effects induced by masked arrows. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:494–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Dr. Blandyna Skalska and Ewelina Trzcińska for their help in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Psychology, University of Finance and Management, ul. Pawia 55, 01-030, Warsaw, Poland

    Piotr Jaśkowski

Authors
  1. Piotr Jaśkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piotr Jaśkowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jaśkowski, P. Negative compatibility effect: the object-updating hypothesis revisited. Exp Brain Res 193, 157–160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1700-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1700-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation