The effect of pre-cueing on spatial attention across perception and action

Brief Report

Abstract

It is well established that processes of perception and action interact. A key question concerns the role of attention in the interaction between perception-action processes. We tested the hypothesis that spatial attention is shared by perception and action. We created a dual-task paradigm: In one task, spatial information is relevant for perception (spatial-input task) but not for action, and in a second task, spatial information is relevant for action (spatial-output task) but not for perception. We used endogenous pre-cueing, with two between-subjects conditions: In one condition the cue was predictive only for the target location in the spatial-input task; in a second condition the cue was predictive only for the location of the response in the spatial-output task. In both conditions, the cueing equally affected both tasks, regardless of the information conveyed by the cue. This finding directly supports the shared input-output attention hypothesis.

Keywords

Spatial attention Perception Action Pre-cueing Endogenous attention 

Notes

Author Contributions

M.M. Israel developed the study concept. All authors contributed to the study design. Testing and data collection were performed by M.M. Israel. M.M. Israel performed the data analysis and interpretation under the supervision of A. Cohen and P. Jolicoeur. M.M. Israel drafted the manuscript, and A. Cohen and P. Jolicoeur provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

References

  1. Abrahamse, E. L., & Van Der Lubbe, R. H. J. (2008). Endogenous orienting modulates the Simon effect: Critical factors in experimental design. Psychological Research, 72(3), 261–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0110-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, A., & Magen, H. (2004). 2 Hierarchical systems of attention and action. Attention in Action: Advances from Cognitive Neuroscience, 27.Google Scholar
  3. Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 3(3), 201–215.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827–1837.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gherri, E., & Eimer, M. (2010). Manual response preparation disrupts spatial attention: An electrophysiological investigation of links between action and attention. Neuropsychologia, 48(4), 961–969.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2011). Seeing while acting: Hand movements can modulate attentional capture by motion onset. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(8), 2448–2456.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0203-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-878.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Israel, M., Joucoeur, P., & Cohen, A. (2016). Spatial attention across perception and action. Psychological Research, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0820-z
  10. Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6(6), 365–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00527.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, R. M. (1994). Perceptual-motor expectancies interact with covert visual orienting under conditions of endogenous but not exogenous control. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale, 48(2), 167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.48.2.167 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kowler, E. (2011). Eye movements: the past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1457–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35(13), 1897–1916.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)00279-U CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2007). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from single task interference paradigms. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109(2), 160–174.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.2.160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25(1A), 31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(87)90041-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027448 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Stoffer, T. H., & Yakin, A R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 56(3), 151–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419702 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research, 209(2), 257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2544-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Abrahamse, E. L., & De Kleine, E. (2012). The premotor theory of attention as an account for the Simon effect. Acta Psychologica, 140(1), 25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects. Neuropsychologia, 26(3), 435–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(88)90096-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moran M. Israel
    • 1
  • Pierre Jolicoeur
    • 2
  • Asher Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations