Different Effects of Exogenous Cues in a Visual Detection and Discrimination Task: Delayed Attention Withdrawal and/or Speeded Motor Inhibition?

Several studies examining spatial attention have found a discrepancy regarding the effects of exogenous cues on reaction times in visual detection and discrimination tasks. Namely, across a wide range of cue-target intervals, responses are slower for targets at cued than at uncued locations (inhibition of return) in detection tasks, whereas responses are faster for targets at cued than at uncued locations (facilitation) in discrimination tasks. Two hypotheses were proposed to account for this discrepancy. First, attention may dwell much longer on the exogenously cued location in discrimination tasks because stimuli have to be identified (i.e., the delayed attention withdrawal hypothesis). Secondly, due to increased motor preparation in detection tasks, cue-induced motor inhibition may rise much faster in these tasks than in discrimination tasks (i.e., the speeded motor inhibition hypothesis). We examined to what extent these hypotheses can account for effects of exogenous cues in a detection and discrimination task on the extrastriate P1 component, and the onset of motor activation, as indexed by the lateralized readiness potential. Some support was found for the delayed attention withdrawal hypothesis, as task-dependent cueing effects were found on the P1 component. Other aspects of our data, however, indicate that motor inhibition is also involved. Based on these findings, we propose that effects of exogenous cues in detection and discrimination tasks are determined by the interplay between two mechanisms, of which the time courses of activation may be modulated by the specific setting.

[1]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Location vs Feature: Reaction Time Reveals Dissociation Between Two Visual Functions , 1996, Vision Research.

[2]  R. Verleger,et al.  Spatiotemporal overlap between brain activation related to saccade preparation and attentional orienting , 2006, Brain Research.

[3]  George R. Mangun,et al.  Reflexive Attention Modulates Processing of Visual Stimuli in Human Extrastriate Cortex , 1998, Psychological science.

[4]  R. Klein,et al.  Temporal Dynamics of Reflexive Attention Shifts: A Dual-Stream Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Exploration , 2002, Psychological science.

[5]  J. Pratt,et al.  Inhibition of return in location- and identity-based choice decision tasks , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[7]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Combined spatial and temporal imaging of brain activity during visual selective attention in humans , 1994, Nature.

[8]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Localizing visual discrimination processes in time and space. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  A. Osman,et al.  Temporal organization of covert motor processes during response selection and preparation , 2003, Biological Psychology.

[10]  R. Klein,et al.  Categories of cognitive inhibition with reference to attention. , 1994 .

[11]  J T Mordkoff,et al.  Detecting the onset of the lateralized readiness potential: a comparison of available methods and procedures. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[12]  A. Postma,et al.  Task-dependent exogenous cuing effects depend on cue modality. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[13]  A. Osman,et al.  On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  J Miller,et al.  The usefulness of partial information: effects of go probability in the choice/Nogo task. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[15]  M. Donnelly,et al.  Inhibition of return for target discriminations: The effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  R. Klein,et al.  The presence of a nonresponding effector increases inhibition of return , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  J. Lupiáñez,et al.  Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  J. Miller,et al.  A distinction between the initiation and the continuation of response preparation. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[19]  R. Lubbe,et al.  FAILURE OF THE EXTENDED CONTINGENT ATTENTIONAL CAPTURE ACCOUNT IN MULTIMODAL SETTINGS , 2006 .

[20]  L. Mulder,et al.  Use of partial stimulus information in response processing. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  R. T. Pivik,et al.  Guidelines for the recording and quantitative analysis of electroencephalographic activity in research contexts. , 1993, Psychophysiology.

[22]  Michael Falkenstein,et al.  A new method for the estimation of the onset of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) , 1998 .

[23]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[25]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Being prepared on time: on the importance of the previous foreperiod to current preparation, as reflected in speed, force and preparation-related brain potentials. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[26]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychophysiological analysis. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  M. Eimer.  An ERP study on visual spatial priming with peripheral onsets. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[29]  E. Vogel,et al.  The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[30]  G R Mangun,et al.  Tracking the influence of reflexive attention on sensory and cognitive processing , 2001, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[31]  M. Woldorff,et al.  Distortion of ERP averages due to overlap from temporally adjacent ERPs: analysis and correction. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[32]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Influence of Time Pressure in a Simple Response Task, a Choice- by-Location Task, and the Simon Task , 2001 .

[33]  Amishi P. Jha,et al.  Promoting Novelty in Vision: Inhibition of Return Modulates Perceptual-Level Processing , 1999 .

[34]  L. M. Ward,et al.  Inhibition of Return From Stimulus to Response , 2004, Psychological science.

[35]  Repetition priming reveals sustained facilitation and transient inhibition in reaction time. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return interacts with the Simon effect: An omnibus analysis and its implications , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  L Henderson,et al.  Preparing to react in the absence of uncertainty: I. New perspectives on simple reaction time. , 1998, British journal of psychology.

[38]  A. Postma,et al.  Spatial attention triggered by unimodal, crossmodal, and bimodal exogenous cues: a comparison of reflexive orienting mechanisms , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  Raymond M. Klein,et al.  On the causes and effects of inhibition of return , 1998 .

[40]  S. Tipper,et al.  On the Strategic Modulation of the Time Course of Facilitation and Inhibition of Return , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[41]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  An event-related brain potential study of inhibition of return , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  C. Frith,et al.  Routes to action in reaction time tasks , 1986, Psychological research.

[43]  P. Keuss,et al.  Threefold effect of peripheral precues: alertness, orienting, and response tendencies. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[44]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .