Abstract
Three experiments were conducted in order to determine whether irrelevant items presented outside the focus of attention would affect the identification of a precued target. A peripheral cue indicated one of eight possible locations in a circular array, centered on fixation with a radius of 5.25°. After a variable interval (0–200 msec), eight characters were presented briefly and masked. In each experiment, there was an effect of the identity of the characters at the seven noncued locations (the nontargets) on the accuracy of identification of the target. When there were more nontargets identical to the target, accuracy was higher than when there were fewer nontargets identical to the target. Nontargets consistently affected performance despite incentives to focus only on the target.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bonnel, A.-M., &Miller, J. (1994). Attentional effects on concurrent psychophysical discriminations: Investigations of a sample-size model.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 162–179.
Cheal, M., &Lyon, D. (1989). Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 719–746.
Cheal, M., &Lyon, D. R. (1992). Attention in visual search: Multiple search classes.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 113–138.
Cheal, M., Lyon, D. R., &Gottlob, L. R. (1994). A framework for understanding the allocation of attention in location-precued discrimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 699–739.
Eriksen, C. W., & St.James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception & Psychophysics,40, 225–240.
Eriksen, C. W., Webb, J. M., &Fournier, L. R. (1990). How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive?Apparently very little, but. . . Perception & Psychophysics,47, 477–488.
Goolkasian, P., &Garver, D. K. (1993). Evidence for processing letters at uncued locations.American Journal of Psychology,108, 235–253.
Gottlob, L. R. (1995).Modeling sharing versus switching in visual attention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Gottlob, L. R., Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R. (1995).Cue validity manipulation in a location-cuing task: Sharing versus switching models for attention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Johnston, W. A., &Dark, V. J. (1986). Selective attention.Annual Review of Psychology,37, 43–75.
LaBerge, D., &Brown, V. (1986). Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect.Perception & Psychophysics,40, 188–200.
LaBerge, D., &Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification.Psychological Review,96, 101–124.
Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 419–434.
Paquet, L., &Lortie, C. (1990). Evidence for early selection: Precuing target location reduces interference from same-category distractors.Perception & Psychophysics,48, 382–388.
Pashler, H., &Badgio, P. C. (1985). Visual attention and stimulus identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 105–121.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 3–25.
Todd, S., &Kramer, A. F. (1994). Attentional misguidance in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 198–210.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., &Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 419–433.
Wright, R. D., Katz, A. N., &Hughes, E. A. (1993). Inattention and the perception of visual features.Acta Psychologica,83, 225–235.
Yantis, S., &Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research was partially funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Life Sciences Task 2313T3) and the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory (Contract F-33615-90-C-0005). Support was also provided by the Department of Industrial and Systems Management Engineering and the Department of Psychology at Arizona State.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chastain, G., Cheal, M. & Lyon, D.R. Attention and nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics 58, 300–309 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211883
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211883