Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Even though there is ample evidence that planning future actions plays a role in attentional processing (e.g., Downing Visual Cognition 11:689–703, 2000; Soto et al., Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:248–342, 2008), it is not clear to what extent planning in itself (rather than the prior experience of the planned actions) controls attention. We suggest that attention can be biased towards stimuli that are associated with instructions for tasks that will be performed in the future even if those tasks have not yet been experienced. We performed two experiments in which participants receive instructions in which some objects were associated with a response (i.e., instructed S-R objects; “Experiment 1”) or a stimulus property (i.e., instructed S-S objects; “Experiment 2”), whereas control objects were not. However, before participants were required to perform the S-R task (“Experiment 1”) or perform an S-S memory task (“Experiment 2”), they performed a visual probe task in which target objects and control objects served as irrelevant cues. Our results show that attention was biased towards the S-R objects (compared to control stimuli) but not to S-S objects. These findings suggest that future plans can bias attention toward specific stimuli, but only when these stimuli are associated with a specific action. We discuss these findings in light of research concerning automatic effects of instructions and theories that view attention as a selection-for-action mechanism.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioural and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & D. F. Saunders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hilsdale: Erlbaum.
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Neurosciences, 16, 437–443. CrossRef
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 326–341. CrossRef
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Falla, S. J., & Hamilton, L. R. (1998). Attentional bias for threatening facial expressions in anxiety: manipulations of stimulus duration. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 737–753. CrossRef
Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press. CrossRef
Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1140–1154.
Dowd, E. W., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Attentional guidance by working memory overrides salience cues in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1786–1796. PubMed
Downing, P. E., & Dodds, C. M. (2004). Competition in visual working memory for control of search. Visual Cognition, 11, 689–703. CrossRef
Everaert, T., Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Automatic motor activation by mere instruction. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1300–1309. CrossRef
Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007a). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologica, 45, 3351–3355. CrossRef
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. PubMed
Hannus, A., Neggers, S. F. W., Cornelissen, F. W., & Bekkering, H. (2004). Selective attention for action: New evidence from visual search studies. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention and performance: attention in action (pp. 131–149), Psychology Press
Kristjansson, A., & Campana, G. (2010). Where perception meets memory: a review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 5–18. CrossRef
Meiran, N., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: intention-based reflexivity and working-memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–12. CrossRef
Meiran N., Pereg M., Kessler Y., Cole M.W., Braver T.S. (2015). The power of Instructions: proactive configuration of stimulus-response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi: 10.1037/a0037190
Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F., & Theeuwes, (2006). Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1243–1265. PubMed
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
Soto, D., Hodsoll, J., Rotshtein, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 248–342. CrossRef
Soto, D., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 730–757. PubMed
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention and performance XIX (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waszak, F., Pfister, R., & Kiesel, A. (2013). Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval. Pscyhological Research, 77, 611–617. CrossRef
Wenke, D., De Houwer, J., De Winne, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2015). Learning through instructions vs. learning through practice: Flanker congruency effects from instructed and applied S-R mappings. Psychological Research.
- Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control
Jan De Houwer
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg