Positive and negative compatibility effects

This paper reports a series of four experiments that established a negative compatibility effect (NCE) by which compatible distractors led to slower and less accurate target performance than did incompatible ones (Experiment 1). This effect is interpreted as an early perceptual effect that delays the attribution of visual attention over the target location in the compatible condition. This view predicted that the NCE should be observed only when attention has to be selectively attributed to the target location. In Experiments 2 and 3, this prediction was tested by manipulating the perceptual load in the display. High perceptual load displays are known to require selective attention (Lavie, 1995). Accordingly, reliable NCEs were observed when high-load displays were used. In contrast, reduced NCEs were found in displays that did not require selective attention. Experiment 4 established that the manifestation of the NCE was influenced by low-level visual cues, such as brightness and contrast. Overall, these experiments indicated that the NCE can be understood as an early perceptual effect, which arises from a conflict between the cues that guide the distribution of attention when the task requires selective attention.

[1]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[2]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[3]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  H E Egeth,et al.  Interference in letter identification: A test of feature-specific inhibition , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Conceptual and perceptual components of interletter inhibition. , 1981 .

[6]  H. Philips,et al.  A Psychophysiological Investigation of Tension Headache , 1982, Headache.

[7]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  D Navon,et al.  How Many Trees Does it Take to Make a Forest? , 1983, Perception.

[9]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 2004 .

[10]  Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects. , 1988 .

[11]  P. Merikle,et al.  Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Lise Paquet,et al.  L'attention sélective : l'effet du critère de sélection , 1988 .

[13]  Jeff F. Miller.  The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  A. Kramer,et al.  Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  J. Greaney,et al.  The order of visual processing: Top-down, bottom-up, middle-out, or none of these? , 1992 .

[17]  L. Paquet.  Global and local processing in nonattended objects: a failure to induce local processing dominance. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Efficient filtering of irrelevant global and local information when target level and location are random , 1993 .

[19]  Gregory Bock,et al.  Higher-order processing in the visual system , 1994 .

[20]  M. Farah,et al.  Does visual attention select objects or locations? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  Selective attention to global and local structure of objects: Alternative measures of nontarget processing , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  H C Nothdurft,et al.  Common properties of visual segmentation. , 1994, Ciba Foundation symposium.

[23]  C. Leeuwen,et al.  Stroop can occur without Garner interference: Strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  S. Kornblum,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  N. Lavie.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  G. Logan,et al.  Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention , 1996 .

[27]  S. Yantis.  2. Attentional capture in vision , 1996 .

[28]  M. Coles,et al.  The dimensionality of the flanker compatibility effect: A psychophysiological analysis , 1997, Psychological research.

[29]  N. Lavie,et al.  On the Efficiency of Visual Selective Attention: Efficient Visual Search Leads to Inefficient Distractor Rejection , 1997 .

[30]  J Fagot,et al.  Processing of global and local visual information and hemispheric specialization in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio). , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.