Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
We hypothesize that a shared spatial attention mechanism is used for both perception and action. To this end we created a new dual-task version of the classical Simon task. In one task, the spatial-input task, associated with input spatial attention, participants named one shape out of two bilaterally presented colored shapes. In a second task, the spatial-output task, associated with output spatial attention, participants discriminated between high and low pitch tones by pressing either a left or a right key. In Experiment 1, input for both tasks appeared simultaneously, and participants were instructed not to prioritize either task. A between tasks Simon-like effect was found for responses to both tasks. Reaction times were shorter when the side of the relevant shape in the spatial-input task and the side of the correct response in the spatial-output task were congruent. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between the inputs for the two tasks and showed that the Simon-like effect remained intact at all SOAs. Experiment 3 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the vocal response for the spatial-input task was not speeded. A Simon-like effect was still observed. Experiment 4 was the same as Experiment 3 except that the non-speeded response for the spatial-input task was manual rather than vocal. No Simon-like effect was observed in this experiment. Our results support a shared spatial attention mechanism involved in the Simon effect and indicate that this spatial attention mechanism is shared by perception and action.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Cohen, A., & Magen, H. (2005). Hierarchical systems of attention and action. In: Attention in action: Advances from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 27–67). doi: 10.4324/9780203449226_chapter_2.
Eimer, M. (1998). The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of central response activation processes. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(1), 146–156. CrossRef
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. The American Journal of Psychology,. doi: 10.2307/1421603.
Koch, I., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Orthogonal cross-task compatibility: Abstract spatial coding in dual tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(1), 45–50. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17546730.
Matthews, T., Lefebvre, C., Fortier-Gauthier, U., Cohen, A., Israel, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (in preparation). The Lateralized Action Potential (LAP): An event-related potential related to the direction of a simple motor movement independently of effector side.
McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(4), 651–667. CrossRef
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00318. CrossRefPubMed
Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2015). Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: Evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research,. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y.
Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (2012). The role of cue-response mapping in motorvisual impairment and facilitation: Evidence for different roles of action planning and action control in motorvisual dual-task priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 336–349. doi: 10.1037/a0024794. CrossRefPubMed
- Spatial attention across perception and action
Moran M. Israel
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg