Abstract
The presentation of a stimulus below the threshold of conscious awareness can exert an influence on the processing of a subsequent target. One such consequence of briefly presented “primes” is seen in the negative compatibility effect. The response time (RT) to determine the left—right orientation of an arrow (i.e., the target) is relatively slow if a prime is also an arrow whose direction corresponds to that of the target. When the direction of the arrow is opposite that of the prime, RTs are relatively fast. In four experiments, we examined whether the prime shifts attention from the location of the subsequent target and whether this attention shift influences target processing. Results showed that the prime does indeed move attention. The consequence of this attention movement is that the representation of direction is affected. Specifically, RTs to process an arrow are shorter if the arrow’s direction is compatible with the last shift of attention. Furthermore, this interference occurs at a conceptual level concerning the representation of left and right rather than at the motor planning level. We argue that a shift in attention brought about by the prime can create a negative compatibility-like effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bar, M., & Biederman, I. (1998). Subliminal visual priming. Psychological Science, 9, 464–469.
Cole, G. G., Gellatly, A. R. H., & Blurton, A. (2001). The effect of object onset on the distribution of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1356–1368.
Cole, G. G., Kentridge, R. W., & Heywood, C. A. (2004). Visual salience in the change detection paradigm: The special role of object onset. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 464–477.
Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2009). Appearance matters: Attentional orienting by new objects in the precuing paradigm. Visual Cognition, 17, 755–776.
Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2010). Attentional capture by object appearance and disappearance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 147–159.
Cole, G. G., Kuhn, G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2007). Onset of illusory figures attenuates change blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 939–943.
Cole, G. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006). Change blindness and the primacy of object appearance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 588–593.
Cole, G. G., Skarratt, P. A., & Gellatly, A. R. H. (2007). Object and spatial representations in the corner enhancement effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 400–412.
Davoli, C. C., Suszko, J. W., & Abrams, R. A. (2007). New objects can capture attention without a unique luminance transient. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 338–343.
Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1737–1747.
Gellatly, A., Pilling, M., Cole, G. G., & Skarratt, P. (2006). What is being masked in object substitution masking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 1422–1435.
Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.
Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.
Klotz, W., & Wolff, P. (1995). The effect of masked stimulus on the response to the masking stimulus. Psychological Research, 58, 92–101.
Kuhn, G., & Benson, V. (2007). The influence of eye-gaze and arrow pointing distractor cues on voluntary eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 966–971.
Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Look away! Eyes and arrows engage oculomotor responses automatically. Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 314–327.
Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 475–493.
Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: Using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 106–120.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
Reppa, I., & Leek, E. C. (2003). The modulation of inhibition of return across object-internal structure: Implications for theories of object-based attentional selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 493–502.
Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attentional shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1353–1364.
Sato, W., Okada, T., & Toichi, M. (2007). Attentional shift by gaze is triggered without awareness. Experimental Brain Research, 183, 87–94.
Schlaghecken, F., & Maylor, E. A. (2005). Motor control in old age: Evidence of impaired low-level inhibition. Journals of Gerontology, 60B, P158-P161.
Schlaghecken, F., Rowley, L., Sembi, S., Simmons, R., & Whitcomb, D. (2007). The negative compatibility effect: A case for selfinhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 227–240.
Sidis, B. (1898). The psychology of suggestion. New York: Appleton.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.
Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 314–318.
Tipples, J. (2008). Orienting to counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 77–87.
Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytical approaches to human cognition (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Vecera, S. P., Behrmann, M., & McGoldrick, J. (2000). Selective attention to the parts of an object. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 301–308.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 601–621.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cole, G.G., Kuhn, G. What the experimenter’s prime tells the observer’s brain. Atten Percept Psychophys 72, 1367–1376 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.5.1367
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.5.1367