The relationship between attentional capture and deviations in movement trajectories in a selective reaching task
Research highlights
► Attentional capture by a stimulus is thought to activate response codes. ► Relationship between attentional capture and response activation was tested here. ► Participants aimed to targets that followed cues that did or did not match target. ► Trajectory deviations were only observed in conditions with temporal interference. ► Trajectory deviations were toward the cue suggesting activation of response to cue.
Introduction
There is an extensive literature on the relationship between attention and goal-directed (saccadic) eye movements on both behavioral (e.g., Deubel & Schneider, 1996) and neural (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2006, McPeek, 2006) levels of analysis. The possible links between attention and hand movements, on the other hand, have received more modest consideration. A growing series of recent studies, however, has been conducted to investigate the interactions between attention and manual motor systems (e.g., Bekkering and Neggers, 2002, Fagioli et al., 2007, Linnell et al., 2005, Schiegg et al., 2003, Tipper et al., 1992, Welsh and Pratt, 2008). This developing line of research on attention and limb movements emerged because of: 1) evidence of a significant overlap and integration of cortical areas responsible for attention and action planning (see Cisek, 2006, Rizzolatti et al., 1994 for reviews); and, 2) the realization that the attention system developed through evolution to provide information for the production of goal-directed limb movements, such as aiming and grasping, and not the relatively arbitrary keypress responses usually employed in studies of selective attention (Allport, 1987).
These more recent studies have lead to the development of action-centered theories and models of attention (e.g., Rizzolatti et al., 1994, Tipper et al., 1992). The main tenet of action-centered attention is that the processes of attention and action are so tightly linked that: 1) the distribution and capture of attention is determined, in part, by the to-be-performed action (Tipper et al., 1992, Welsh and Pratt, 2008); and, 2) that the capture of attention by a particular object automatically activates response producing processes that are generated to allow the individual to interact with the object (Tipper et al., 1992, Tipper et al., 1999, Welsh et al., 1999). The purpose of the present study was to test the latter by examining the trajectories of manual aiming movements completed in conditions in which the same set of stimuli do, or do not, capture attention.
To elucidate, the main evidence supporting the idea that attentional capture leads to the activation of response producing processes comes from studies showing that the characteristics of goal-directed limb movements are affected by the presence of distracting, non-target stimuli (e.g., Lee, 1999, Song and Nakayama, 2006, Song and Nakayama, 2008, Tipper et al., 1999, Welsh et al., 1999). Specifically, it has been reported that the trajectories of aiming movements veer towards (Welsh et al., 1999, Welsh and Elliott, 2004) or away from (Howard and Tipper, 1997, Welsh and Elliott, 2004) the location of non-target stimulus information. It has been suggested that these trajectory deviations occur because the capture of attention by target and non-target stimuli automatically activates a response code to each stimulus. When aiming responses are required, it is suggested that these independent target and non-target responses are represented, in part, by the activation of different subpopulations of directionally-tuned cells (Georgopoulos, 1990). The initial direction of the movement is then determined by the resultant vector of these simultaneously represented responses (Cisek and Kalaska, 2002, Cisek and Kalaska, 2005) at the moment of movement initiation (Erlhagen and Schöner, 2002, Tipper et al., 1999, Welsh et al., 1999).
Although there are different explanations of the mechanisms that cause the specific pattern of deviations towards or away from a non-target that have been observed, there is general consensus that the deviations occur because the resultant movement code reflects the current activation state of both target and non-target response codes—deviations towards a non-target reveals that the non-target response representation is active, whereas deviation away from a target reveals that the non-target response representation has been inhibited (e.g., Howard and Tipper, 1997, Tipper et al., 1999, Welsh and Elliott, 2004; see Welsh & Weeks, 2010 for a recent review). The important premise of each explanation for the present paper is that the activation of competing response codes are dependent on attentional capture by the non-target stimuli. Without attentional capture by the non-target stimulus, there will be no competing response code and no trajectory deviations. The present study was designed to test this entry point hypothesis by examining the relationship between attentional capture and trajectory deviations.
To this end, an adaptation of the contingent involuntary orienting task (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992) was used because it provided an established method for the study of property-specific attentional capture (i.e., contexts in which the same stimuli do and do not capture attention). Participants in the Folk et al. (1992) study were asked to identify a target presented at one of four locations with a keypress response. The target for a given trial was either an onset singleton (only a single stimulus presented) or a color singleton (a red target stimulus presented amongst a series of white non-target stimuli). On the most theoretically-relevant trials, the target display was preceded by a cue display in which the properties of the cue matched the target (e.g., an onset singleton cue followed by an onset singleton target) or did not match the target (e.g., an onset singleton cue followed by a color singleton target). The cue was presented either at the same location as the subsequent target (cued-target trial) or at a different location (uncued-target trial) from the target. The critical finding was that an interference effect associated with cues presented at a different location from the target was only observed when the properties of the cue matched the properties of the target. Specifically, interference effects (an increase in response times on uncued target trials thought to be associated with attentional capture by the cue) were observed when the onset singleton target was preceded by an onset singleton cue, but not when preceded by a color singleton cue. Likewise, interference effects were observed when the color singleton target was preceded by a color singleton cue, but not when preceded by an onset singleton cue. Folk et al., 1992, Folk et al., 1994 and others (e.g., Gibson & Kelsey, 1998) have argued that this pattern of interference occurs because people are able to establish a top–down “attentional set” that permits stimuli that match the searched-for (i.e., target) property to capture attention and receive more in depth processing. Stimuli whose properties do not match this attentional set do not capture attention. Thus, it was suggested that the interference effects were only observed when the cue properties matched the attentional set because the cue stimuli that matched the attentional set captured attention and competed with the target stimuli for cognitive resources. Cue stimuli not matching the attentional set did not capture attention and, hence, did not compete with the target stimuli for resources.
The present study exploited the feature-specific nature of attentional capture to test the relationship between attentional capture and trajectory deviations. Participants were asked to complete rapid aiming movements to one of three target locations identified by either a color or an onset singleton stimulus. The target was preceded by a singleton cue stimulus that either matched or did not match the property of the target stimulus (e.g., Folk et al., 1992). The location of the target and cue stimuli were randomized within a block of trials such that the targets and cues were presented at the same location (cued-target trials) on some trials and the cue and target were presented at different locations (uncued-target trials) on other trials. There was also a no cue trial condition in which only the target appeared.
If, as predicted through action-centered attention models of attention, the capture of attention by a stimulus automatically activates response codes to interact with that stimulus, then trajectory deviations will only be observed in cue-target conditions in which the cue stimulus captures attention and causes temporal interference effects. Based on the contingent capture hypothesis and findings of Folk et al., 1992, Folk et al., 1994, it was expected that cue stimuli will only capture attention and cause temporal and trajectory interference effects when the properties of the cue stimuli match the properties of the target stimuli because they fit with the attentional set (i.e., onset singleton cue-onset singleton target and color singleton cue-color singleton target trial blocks). In contrast, because stimuli not matching the attentional set are not likely to capture attention, then temporal and trajectory interference effects should not be observed in trial blocks on which onset singleton cues precede color singleton targets or color singleton cues precede onset singleton targets. Any pattern of findings in which temporal and trajectory effects are not observed in exactly the same conditions would contradict the tenet of action-centered models of attention that the capture of attention by a stimulus drives a response-producing process to interact with that stimulus. Such a set of findings would suggest that the link between attention and action is weaker than proposed and that the activation of motor plans may be relatively independent from attentional capture.
Section snippets
Participants
The participants of this study included fourteen naïve volunteers (5 males and 9 females) between the ages of 20 and 29 years. All participants were right-handed (self-report) and provided written informed consent prior to participation. Participants received monetary compensation for their time. The procedures were approved by the University of Calgary Ethics Board and complied with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki regarding the treatment of human participants in
Temporal measures
Mean TRT, RT, and MT values were submitted to separate 2 (Cue Property: onset, color) by 2 (Target Property: onset, color) by 3 (Cue Condition: no cue, cued-target, uncued-target) repeated measures ANOVA. The analysis of TRT revealed a main effect for Cue Condition, F (2, 24) = 178.55, p < .005, indicating that movements executed without a cue (772 ms) took longer to plan and complete than movements following cued-targets (700 ms) and uncued-targets cues (712 ms). Importantly, TRTs on uncued-target
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that attentional capture by a stimulus activates a response code to interact with that stimulus by investigating the relationship between the capture of attention by a non-target stimulus and movement trajectory deviations. The results support this hypothesis because the trajectories of aiming movements were found to veer towards the location of an irrelevant cue stimulus when it was presented at a non-target location. Critically, the
Conclusions
The present finding that trajectory deviations in aiming movements were only present in conditions in which temporal interference effects occurred provides clear support for the link between attentional capture and response activation. While there is growing evidence that the needs of the motor system shapes attentional (Bekkering and Neggers, 2002, Welsh and Pratt, 2008) and perceptual processes (Craighero et al., 1999, Jonikaitis and Deubel, 2011, Symes et al., 2008), such robust evidence
Acknowledgments
This research was funded through grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the Alberta Ingenuity Fund. I would like to thank Jenna Yamashita for her assistance with data collection and analysis and Laura Higgins for her assistance with generating the figures. I would also like to thank Dr. Gordon Binsted for technical support and helpful comments and suggestions.
References (42)
- et al.
Neural correlates of reaching decisions in dorsal premotor cortex: Specification of multiple direction choices and final selection of action
Neuron
(2005) - et al.
Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism
Vision Research
(1996) - et al.
Saccades, salience and attention: the role of the lateral intraparietal area in visual behavior
Progress in Brain Research
(2006) - et al.
Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review
(2006) Effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on visually guided hand movements
Cognitive Brain Research
(1999)- et al.
Action modulates object-based selection
Vision Research
(2005) - et al.
Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention
Neuropsychologia
(1987) - et al.
Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories
Vision Research
(2008) - et al.
Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2009) Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action
Visual search is modulated by action intentions
Psychological Science
Ocular perturbations and retinal/extraretinal information: The coordination of saccadic and manual movements
Experimental Brain Research
Eye-head coordination in monkeys: Evidence for centrally patterned organization
Science
Integrated neural processes for defining potential actions and deciding between them: A computational model
Journal of Neuroscience
Simultaneous encoding of multiple potential reach directions in dorsal premotor cortex
Journal of Neurophysiology
Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Dynamic field theory of motor preparation
Psychological Review
Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action related stimulus dimensions
Psychological Research
Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings
Journal Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance
The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color
Journal Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance
Neurophysiology of reaching
Cited by (32)
The role of primary motor cortex in manual inhibition of return: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study
2023, Behavioural Brain ResearchAttentional capture in goal-directed action during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood
2022, Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Thus, our findings indicate that the link between attention and action previously observed in adults (e.g., Kerzel & Schönhammer, 2013; Moher, Anderson, et al., 2015; Welsh, 2011) is present as early as the preschool years. The results support action-centered models of attention (Tipper et al., 1992; Welsh, 2011) and underscore the importance of incorporating continuous behavioral measures into developmental research on perception and action (see also Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009; Thelen, Schöner, Scheier, & Smith, 2001). Indeed, the conclusions of the current study would have been entirely different if the spatial characteristics of participants’ movements were not measured given that no evidence of attentional capture was observed in adolescent or adult ITs or MTs.
Dissociable Effects of Salience on Attention and Goal-Directed Action
2015, Current BiologyThe effects of saliency on manual reach trajectories and reach target selection
2014, Vision ResearchCitation Excerpt :This finding supports the idea that simultaneous action plans to target and distractor are created and compete for final selection (Cisek & Kalaska, 2005; Song & Nakayama, 2009). Consistent with a growing literature on reaching movements, trajectories deviated toward competing non-target elements (Buetti & Kerzel, 2009; Finkbeiner, Song, Nakayama, & Caramazza, 2008; Kerzel & Schonhammer, 2013; Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, & Goschke, 2010; Song & Nakayama, 2006; Welsh, 2011; Wood et al., 2011). Third, the deviation toward the distractor did not depend on relative target saliency, which is contrary to our expectation that the deviation should be larger when the distractor was red than when the target was red.
Refining the time course of facilitation and inhibition in attention and action
2013, Neuroscience LettersCitation Excerpt :To investigate the influence of attentional mechanisms on more complex actions [1,17], several researchers have asked participants to execute rapid goal-directed aiming movements in cue-target contexts [3,10,13]. The focus of these studies was comparing movement trajectories to cued and uncued target locations [11,17,20]. Relative movement trajectories have proved to be a sensitive index of attention/action coupling because the direction of reaching movements are represented, in part, by a specialized set of directionally-tuned cells within cortical motor systems [8].
How obstructing is an obstacle? The influence of starting posture on obstacle avoidance
2012, Acta Psychologica