Moving Single Dots as Primes for Static Arrow Targets
Negative Compatibility Effects at Very Long SOAs
Abstract
Abstract. In response priming, responses are typically faster and more accurate if the prime calls for the same response as the target (i.e., compatible trials) than when primes and targets trigger different responses (i.e., incompatible trials). With moving rows-of-dots as primes for static arrow targets, participants instead responded faster to incompatible targets with longer SOAs (stimulus onset asynchrony, > 200 ms). Until now, it is unclear whether this effect is specific to the material. In the present research, a single moving dot was used as a prime. Further, we analyzed compatibility effects depending on reaction times (RTs). Positive compatibility effects in reaction times were found with an SOA of 147 ms and even with a relatively long SOA of 360 ms; for very long SOAs (800–1,200 ms), negative effects were found. We interpreted this as evidence that the specific type of motion is irrelevant for the occurrence of a negative compatibility effect.
References
(1987). Visual insertia in apparent motion. Vision Research, 27, 755–764.
(2013). Response priming with apparent motion primes. Psychological Research, 77, 371–387.
(2005). Movement-based compatibility in simple response tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 695–707.
(2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641.
(1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269–297.
(1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioural performance. Acta Psychologica, 101, 293–313.
(2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 514–520.
(2003). Response facilitation and inhibition in subliminal priming. Biological Psychology, 64, 7–26.
(2004). Gaze following in newborns. Infancy, 5, 39–60.
(2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
(1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490–495.
(2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 694–724.
(2011). Automatic imitation. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 463–483.
(1998). Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 781–787.
(2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
(2013). Tracking the first two seconds: Three stages of visual information processing? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 1114–1119.
(2008). Negative congruency effects: A test of the inhibition account. Consciousness & Cognition, 17, 1–21.
(2005). Two versions of the negative compatibility effect: Comment on Lleras and Enns (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 431–435.
(2009). Temporary activation of perceptual–motor associations: A stimulus–response interpretation of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1266–1285.
(2010). From sunshine to double arrows: An evaluation window account of negative compatibility effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 490–519.
(1997). List-context effects in evaluative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 246–255.
(2013). Neural correlates of control operations in inverse priming with relevant and irrelevant masks. NeuroImage, 64, 197–208.
(2005). Spatial cueing by social versus nonsocial directional signals. Visual Cognition, 12, 1497–1527.
(2005). The time course of response inhibition in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 545–557.
(2006). How much like a target can a mask be? Geometric, spatial, and temporal similarity in priming: A reply to Schlaghecken and Eimer (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 495–500.
(2013). Identity-based inhibitory processing during focused attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 138–159.
(2007). Action planning in the presence of distracting stimuli: An investigation into the time course of distractor effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1045–1061.
(2005). Inhibition and decay of motor and nonmotor priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 285–300.
(2006). On the locus of priming and inverse compatibility effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 975–991.
(2007). Inverse target- and cue-compatibility effects of masked stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 83–102.
(2007). Priming by motion too rapid to be consciously seen. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1389–1396.
(2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774–785.
(1985). MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 316–333.
(1997). Detecting the effects of voluntary attention on a visual motion processing region in human cortex. Neuron, 18, 591–598.
(2013). The negative compatibility effect with relevant masks: A case for automatic motor inhibition. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 822. doi: 10.3389/fpsycg.2013.00822
(1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 579–586.
(2009). The Simon effect with conventional signals: A time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56, 219–227.
(1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.
(2008). The integration of higher order form and motion by the human brain. Neuroimage, 42, 1529–1536.
(2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 148–162.
(2006). Active masks and active inhibition: A comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and on Verleger, Jaśkowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 484–494.
(2005). Motor control in old age: Evidence of impaired low-level inhibition. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60B, 158–161.
(2007). The negative compatibility effect: A case for self-inhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 227–240.
(2011). Dos and dont’s in response priming research. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 120–131.
(2015). Mask-triggered thrust reversal in the negative compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2377–2398. doi: 10.3758/s13414-015-0923-4
(2008). A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 809–813.
(1990).
The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing . In R. W. ProctorT. G. ReeveEds., Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.(2007). Negative and positive masked-priming – implications for motor inhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 317–326.
(2008). Oscillations in motor priming: Positive rebound follows the inhibitory phase in the masked prime paradigm. Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 484–490.
(2007). Human medial frontal cortex mediates unconscious inhibition of voluntary action. Neuron, 54, 697–711.
(1977). Time course of context effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 414–426.
(1996). Attentional modulation of visual motion processing in cortical areas MT and MST. Nature, 382, 539–541.
(1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(1997). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(1998). How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern statistical methods? The American Psychologist, 53, 300–314.
(2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40, 925–930.
(2013). Evidence inhibition responds reactively to the salience of distracting information during focused attention. PLoS One, 8, e62809.
(2013). Shifting selection may control apparent motion. Psychological Science, 24, 1368–1370.
