Abstract
Allocation of attentional resources rests on predictions about the likelihood of events. While this effect has been extensively studied in the spatial attention domain where the location of a target stimulus is pre-cued, less is known about the cueing of stimulus features such as the color of a behaviorally relevant target. Moreover, there is disagreement about which types of color cues are effective for biasing attention. Here we investigated the effects of probabilistic context (percentage of cue validity, %CV) for different levels of cue abstraction to elucidate how feature-based search information is processed and used to direct attention. The color of a target was cued by presenting the perceptual color, the color word, or two-letter abbreviations. %CV, i.e., the probability that the cue indicated the color correctly, changed unpredictably between 50, 70, and 90 %. Response times (RTs) for valid and invalid trials in each %CV condition were recorded in 60 datasets and analyzed with analyses of variance. The results showed that all cues were associated with comparable RT costs after invalid cueing. The modulation of RT costs by probabilities, however, depended upon level of cue abstraction and time on task: While a strong, immediate impact of %CV was found for two-letter cueing, the effect was solely observed in the second half of the experiment for perceptual and word cues. These results demonstrate that probabilistic feature-based information is processed differently for different levels of cue abstraction. Moreover, the modulatory effect of the environmental statistics differentially depends on the time on task for different feature cues.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ansorge U, Becker SI (2012) Automatic priming of attentional control by relevant colors. Atten Percept Psychophys 74(1):83–104. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0231-6
Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Walton ME, Rushworth MF (2007) Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nat Neurosci 10(9):1214–1221. doi:10.1038/nn1954
Brown TL, Gore CL, Carr TH (2002) Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: is word recognition “automatic”? J Exp Psychol Gen 131(2):220–240
Daunizeau J, den Ouden HE, Pessiglione M, Kiebel SJ, Friston KJ, Stephan KE (2010a) Observing the observer (II): deciding when to decide. PLoS One 5(12):e15555. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015555
Daunizeau J, den Ouden HE, Pessiglione M, Kiebel SJ, Stephan KE, Friston KJ (2010b) Observing the observer (I): meta-Bayesian models of learning and decision-making. PLoS One 5(12):e15554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015554
Egner T, Monti JM, Trittschuh EH, Wieneke CA, Hirsch J, Mesulam MM (2008) Neural integration of top-down spatial and feature-based information in visual search. J Neurosci 28(24):6141–6151. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1262-08.2008
Ferrand L, Augustinova M (2014) Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference. Psychon Bull Rev 21(2):425–431. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0507-z
Geng JJ, Behrmann M (2005) Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search. Percept Psychophys 67(7):1252–1268
Giesbrecht B, Woldorff MG, Song AW, Mangun GR (2003) Neural mechanisms of top-down control during spatial and feature attention. Neuroimage 19(3):496–512
Giessing C, Thiel CM, Rosler F, Fink GR (2006) The modulatory effects of nicotine on parietal cortex activity in a cued target detection task depend on cue reliability. Neuroscience 137(3):853–864. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.10.005
Labuschagne EM, Besner D (2015) Automaticity revisited: when print doesn’t activate semantics. Front Psychol 6:117. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00117
Lacouture Y, Cousineau C (2008) How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 4:35–45
Landau AN, Elwan D, Holtz S, Prinzmetal W (2012) Voluntary and involuntary attention vary as a function of impulsivity. Psychon Bull Rev 19(3):405–411. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0240-z
Macaluso E, Doricchi F (2013) Attention and predictions: control of spatial attention beyond the endogenous-exogenous dichotomy. Front Hum Neurosci 7:685. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00685
MacLeod CM (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull 109(2):163–203
Millar K (1983) Clinical trial design: the neglected problem of asymmetrical transfer in cross-over trials. Psychol Med 13(4):867–873
Muller HJ, Geyer T (2009) Dynamics of attentional control. Psychol Res 73(2):123–126. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0203-1
Muller HJ, Rabbitt PM (1989) Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15(2):315–330
Muller HJ, Tollner T, Zehetleitner M, Geyer T, Rangelov D, Krummenacher J (2010) Dimension-based attention modulates feed-forward visual processing. Acta Psychol (Amst) 135(2):117–122. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.004 (discussion 133–119)
Neely JH, VerWys CA, Kahan TA (1998) Reading “glasses” will prime “vision”, but reading a pair of “glasses” will not. Mem Cognit 26(1):34–39
Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES (1995) Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 51(6):768–774
Posner MI (1980) Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol 32(1):3–25
Rangelov D, Muller HJ, Zehetleitner M (2011) Dimension-specific intertrial priming effects are task-specific: evidence for multiple weighting systems. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37(1):100–114. doi:10.1037/a0020364
Riggio L, Kirsner K (1997) The relationship between central cues and peripheral cues in covert visual orientation. Percept Psychophys 59(6):885–899
Schenkluhn B, Ruff CC, Heinen K, Chambers CD (2008) Parietal stimulation decouples spatial and feature-based attention. J Neurosci 28(44):11106–11110. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3591-08.2008
Soto D, Rotshtein P, Hodsoll J, Mevorach C, Humphreys GW (2012) Common and distinct neural regions for the guidance of selection by visuoverbal information held in memory: converging evidence from fMRI and rTMS. Hum Brain Mapp 33(1):105–120. doi:10.1002/hbm.21196
Stankevich BA, Geng JJ (2014) Reward associations and spatial probabilities produce additive effects on attentional selection. Atten Percept Psychophys. doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0720-5
Theeuwes J (2013) Feature-based attention: it is all bottom-up priming. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368(1628):20130055. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0055
Theeuwes J, Van der Burg E (2007) The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(6):1335–1351. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1335
Vandenberghe R, Gitelman DR, Parrish TB, Mesulam MM (2001) Location- or feature-based targeting of peripheral attention. Neuroimage 14(1 Pt 1):37–47. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0790
Vossel S, Bauer M, Mathys C, Adams RA, Dolan RJ, Stephan KE, Friston KJ (2014a) Cholinergic stimulation enhances Bayesian belief updating in the deployment of spatial attention. J Neurosci 34(47):15735–15742. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0091-14.2014
Vossel S, Mathys C, Daunizeau J, Bauer M, Driver J, Friston KJ, Stephan KE (2014b) Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: a study of saccadic response speed. Cereb Cortex 24(6):1436–1450. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs418
Whelan R (2008) Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychol Rec 58(3):475–482
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 01GQ1401).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dombert, P.L., Fink, G.R. & Vossel, S. The impact of probabilistic feature cueing depends on the level of cue abstraction. Exp Brain Res 234, 685–694 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4487-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4487-2