Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1064-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Dual-task studies have shown higher sensitivity for stimuli presented at the targets of upcoming actions. We examined whether attention is directed to action targets for the purpose of action selection, or if attention is directed to these locations because they are expected to provide feedback about movement outcomes. In our experiment, endpoint accuracy feedback was spatially separated from the action targets to determine whether attention would be allocated to (a) the action targets, (b) the expected source of feedback, or (c) to both locations. Participants reached towards a location indicated by an arrow while identifying a discrimination target that could appear in any one of eight possible locations. Discrimination target accuracy was used as a measure of attention allocation. Participants were unable to see their hand during reaching and were provided with a small monetary reward for each accurate movement. Discrimination target accuracy was best at action targets but was also enhanced at the spatially separated feedback locations. Separating feedback from the reaching targets did not diminish discrimination accuracy at the movement targets but did result in delayed movement initiation and reduced reaching accuracy, relative to when feedback was presented at the reaching target. The results suggest attention is required for both action planning and monitoring movement outcomes. Dividing attention between these functions negatively impacts action performance.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4956 KB)426_2018_1064_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioural and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bonfiglioli, C., Duncan, J., Rorden, C., & Kennett, S. (2002). Action and perception: Evidence against converging selection processes. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 458–476. CrossRef
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. CrossRef
Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 81–107. CrossRef
Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Forstmann, B. U., Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Testing theories of post-error slowing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(2), 454–465. CrossRef
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 14(1), 155–160. CrossRef
Fischer, M. H. (1997). Attention allocation during manual movement preparation and execution. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 17–51. CrossRef
Franz, V. H. (2004). The Optotrak Toolbox. http://www.allpsych.unigiessen.de/vf/OptotrakToolbox/. Accessed 15 Apr 2010.
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385–390. CrossRef
Geisser, S., & Greenhouse, S. W. (1958). An extension of box’s results on the use of the $ F $ distribution in multivariate analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29(3), 885–891. CrossRef
Gray, R. (2011). Links between attention, performance pressure, and movement in skilled motor action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 301–306. CrossRef
Hickey, C., Kaiser, D., & Peelen, M. V. (2015). Reward guides attention to object categories in real-world scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 264–273. CrossRef
Hunt, A. R., Reuther, J., Hilchey, M. D., & Klein, R. M. (2018). The relationship between spatial attention and eye movements. In T. Hodgson (Ed.), Processes of visuo-spatial attention and working memory. Current topics in behavioural neurosciences. Cham: Springer ( in press).
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (p. 246). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. Perspectives on perception and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 361–394). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 19–45. CrossRef
Remington, R. W. (1980). Attention and saccadic eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(4), 726. PubMed
Rizzolati, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umilta, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40. CrossRef
Ross, A. I., Schenk, T., & Hesse, C. (2015). The effect of gaze position on reaching movements in an obstacle avoidance task. PLoS ONE, 10, 0144193.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Augmented feedback. In Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis, 5th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 393–405.
Schneider, W. X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition, and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2(2), 331–376. CrossRef
Schneider, W. X., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: a review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 609–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Similä, S. S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2015). Look where you’re going! Perceptual attention constrains the online guidance of action. Vision Research, 110, 179–189. CrossRef
Stelmach, L. B., Campsall, J. M., & Herdman, C. M. (1997). Attentional and ocular movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 823–844. CrossRef
Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1–36. CrossRef
Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 314–318. CrossRef
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18. PubMed
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2–19. CrossRef
Wirth, R., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2018). Effect monitoring in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(4), 553–572. PubMed
Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
- Shared attention for action selection and action monitoring in goal-directed reaching
Amelia R. Hunt
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Psychological Research
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772