Using Rescorla’s truly random control condition to measure truly exogenous covert orienting
Studies of exogenous covert orienting use peripheral cues (stimuli) that are spatially uninformative about the locations of subsequent targets. When the time course of the cue’s influence on performance is explored (by varying the cue target onset asynchrony; CTOA), a biphasic pattern is usually seen with better performance at the cued location when the CTOA is short (typically attributed to attentional capture) and worse performance at the cued location when the CTOA is long (attributed to inhibition of return). However, while spatially uninformative, these cues (even when a nonaging foreperiod is used) entail a temporal contingency with the subsequent target. Consequently, this so-called capture may reflect an unintended consequence of endogenous allocation of temporal attention. Following Lawrence and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 560–572, 2013) we used Rescorla’s (Psychological Review, 74, 71–80, 1967) truly random control condition to ensure that the spatially uninformative peripheral stimuli were temporally completely uninformative. Even such completely uninformative peripheral stimuli generated the prototypical biphasic pattern.
KeywordsAttentional capture Inhibition of return Spatial attention Uninformative cueing Temporal uncertainty
The research described here was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant to Raymond Klein. The instructions, stimuli, program, data files, and analysis scripts associated with the research presented here are posted at https://osf.io/cz48s.
- Briand, K., & Klein, R. M. (1987). Is Posner's beam the same as Treisman's glue?: on the relationship between visual orienting and feature integration theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13(2), 228–247.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye movements. In A. D. Long (Ed.), Attention and performance IX ( pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Klein, R. M. (1994). Perceptual-motor expectancies interact with covert visual orienting under endogenous but not exogenous control. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 151–166.Google Scholar
- Klein, R. M., & Lawrence, M. A. (2011). On the modes and domains of attention. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (2nd ed., pp. 11–28). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Klein, R. M. & Lawrence, M. A. (2012). Pursuing a productive taxonomy of attention. Presented at a symposium: on the future of attention research and practice: defining, measuring and repairing the networks of attention: an international symposium (Halifax, Canada)Google Scholar
- Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 15(2), 315–330.Google Scholar
- Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance X, 32, 531–556.Google Scholar
- Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar