Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
We investigated the influence of conceptual processing on visual attention from the standpoint of Theory of Event Coding (TEC). The theory makes two predictions: first, an important factor in determining the influence of event 1 on processing event 2 is whether features of event 1 are bound into a unified representation (i.e., selection or retrieval of event 1). Second, whether processing the two events facilitates or interferes with each other should depend on the extent to which their constituent features overlap. In two experiments, participants performed a visual-attention cueing task, in which the visual target (event 2) was preceded by a relevant or irrelevant explicit (e.g., “UP”) or implicit (e.g., “HAPPY”) spatial-conceptual cue (event 1). Consistent with TEC, we found relevant explicit cues (which featurally overlap to a greater extent with the target) and implicit cues (which featurally overlap to a lesser extent), respectively, facilitated and interfered with target processing at compatible locations. Irrelevant explicit and implicit cues, on the other hand, both facilitated target processing, presumably because they were less likely selected or retrieved as an integrated and unified event file. We argue that such effects, often described as “attentional cueing”, are better accounted for within the event coding framework.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Casasanto, D. (2010). Space for thinking. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: State of the art and new directions (pp. 453–478). London: Equinox Publishing.
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. CrossRef
Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To be or not to be… included in an event file: Integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37, 1209–1227. doi: 10.1037/a0023915. CrossRef
Giesen, C., & Rothermund, K. (2014). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses and previous targets: Experimental dissociations of distractor–response and distractor–target bindings. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 645–659. doi: 10.1037/a0035278. CrossRefPubMed
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. CrossRef
Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive Contributions to the Perception of Spatial and Temporal Events (Advances in Psychology, Vol. 129, pp. 121–147). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Biasing spatial attention with semantic information: an event coding approach
Davood G. Gozli
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg