Skip to main content
Log in

Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research PRPF Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study investigated whether offset cues have the same attentional consequences in the spatial Stroop effect as onset cues. Experiments 1 and 2 compared the attentional effects of onset–offset cues versus offset cues on the spatial Stroop effect, whereas Experiment 3 compared the attentional effects of onset versus offset cues. Across these experiments, independent of cue type (onset–offset or onset vs. offset) and even at long stimulus-onset asynchrony, attentional cueing did not revert into inhibition of return and was modulated by spatial Stroop with greater cueing effects for incongruent arrow’s direction and position. In addition, onset–offset or onset and offset cues produced comparable cueing effects in the location-direction congruent condition, and onset–offset or onset cues produced greater facilitation than offset cues in the incongruent condition. From a different perspective, peripheral cueing modulated the spatial Stroop effect in the same direction for onset–offset or onset and offset cues, although the reduction in spatial Stroop at cued locations was smaller with offset than with onset–offset or onset cues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartolomeo, P. (2007). Visual neglect. Current Opinion in Neurology, 20(4), 381–386.

  • Birmingham, E., & Pratt, J. (2005). Examining inhibition of return with onset and offset cues in the multiple cueing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 118, 101–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., & Peterson, M. S. (2005). Oculomotor consequences of abrupt onsets and offsets: Onsets dominate oculomotor capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 910–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockmole, J. R., & Henderson, J. M. (2005). Object appearance, disappearance, and attention prioritization in real-world scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1061–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejas, A., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A., Chasteen, A. L., Scialfa, C. T., & Pratt, J. (2003). Adult age differences in the time course of inhibition of return. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58, 256–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chica, A., Lupiáñez, J., Rossi, A., & Riggio, L. (submitted). Differential cuing effects for onset and offset cues under identical task sets.

  • Danziger, S., Kingstone, A., & Ward, R. (2001). Environmentally defined frames of reference: Their sensitivity to spatial cues and attention, and their time course. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 494–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2003). La teoría atencional de Posner: Una tarea para medir las funciones atencionales de orientación, alerta y control cognitivo y la interacción entre ellas. Psicothema, 15, 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (2005). The role of spatial attention and other processes on the magnitude and time course of cueing effects. Cognitive Processing—International Quarterly of Cognitive Science, 6, 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (2007). Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (2008). The modulation of exogenous spatial cueing on spatial Stroop interference: evidence of a set for “cue–target event segregation”. Psicológica, 29, 65–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawryszewski, L. G., Thomaz, T. G., Machado-Pinheiro, W., & Sant’Anna, A. N. (1994). Onset and offset of a visual cue have different effects on manual reaction time to a visual target. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 27, 67–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993a). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993b). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanoff, J., Klein, R. M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2002). Inhibition of return interacts with the Simon effect: an omnibus analysis and its implications. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 318–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 346–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon effect and congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Fu, X. (2009). Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

  • Lupiáñez, J., & Chica, A. B. (submitted). Inhibition of return and attentional disengagement.

  • Lupiáñez, J., & Funes, M. J. (2005). Peripheral spatial cues modulate spatial Stroop interference: analyzing the “locus” of the cueing modulation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 727–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez, J., Milan, E. G., Tornay, F. J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later. Perception and Psychophysics, 59(8), 1241–1254.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (1999). Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information. The Journal o f General Psychology, 126(4), 392–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez, J., Milliken, B., Solano, C., Weaver, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2001). On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return. The Quarterly Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 54(3), 753–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez, J., Ruz, M., Funes, M. J., & Milliken, B. (2007). The manifestation of attentional capture: facilitation or IOR depending on task demands. Psychological Research, 71(1), 77–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: control of language processes (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., & Hirshhorn, M. (2003). Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues. Psychological Research, 67, 261–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., & McAuliffe, J. (2001). The effects of onsets and offsets on visual attention. Psychological Research, 65, 185–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., Theeuwes, J., & Donk, M. (2007). Offsets and prioritizing the selection of new elements in search displays: more evidence for attentional capture in the preview effect. Visual Cognition, 15, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., & Trottier, L. (2005). Pro-saccades and anti-saccades to onset and offset targets. Vision Research, 45, 765–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Lu, C. H., & Van Zandt, T. (1992). Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing. Acta Psychologica, 81, 53–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rastelli, F., Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., Duret, C., & Bartolomeo, P. (2008). Left visual neglect: is the disengage deficit Space– or object–based? Experimental Brain Research, 187(3), 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Jha, A. P., & Rosenquist, J. N. (1996). What is inhibited in inhibition of return? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, L., Bello, A., & Umilta, C. (1998). Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset. Psychological Research, 61, 107–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umilta, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs in relation to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 1353–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. G., & Weiner, S. K. (2001). Attentional consequences of object appearance and disappearance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(6), 1433–1451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focusing and spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. L., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 75–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus–response compatibility effects. Neuropsychologia, 26, 435–444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vingilis-Jaremko, L., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2008). Better late than never: how onsets and offsets influence prior entry and exit. Psychological Research, 72, 443–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1996). Attentional capture by abrupt onsets: New perceptual objects or visual masking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1505–1513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimba, L. D., & Brito, C. F. (1995). Attention precuing and Simon effects: a test of the attention-coding account of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by grants from 973 Program of Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant # 2006CB303101 and 2007CB303101) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant # 90820305, 30500157 and 30600182). This research was also financially supported in part by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science with research projects PSI2008-03595PSIC and CSD2008-00048.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaolan Fu or Xuchu Weng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Fu, X. et al. Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues. Psychological Research 74, 277–290 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0253-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0253-z

Keywords

Navigation