Exposing the cuing task: the case of gaze and arrow cues

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Dana A. Hayward ; Jelena Ristic
• 关键词：Posner cuing paradigm ; Social attention ; Automated symbolic orienting ; Tonic alertness ; Voluntary temporal preparation
• 刊名：Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：May 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：77
• 期：4
• 页码：1088-1104
• 全文大小：800 KB
• 参考文献：Alegria, J. (1978). Sequential effects of catch-trials on choice reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 42, 1-.View Article
  Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437-43.View Article PubMed Central PubMed
  Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
  Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412-14.View Article PubMed Central PubMed
  Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: Should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17(6), 514-20.View Article PubMed Central PubMed
  Berger, A., Henik, A., & Rafal, R. D. (2005). Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 207-21.View Article
  Bertelson, P. (1967). Time course of preparation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19(3), 272-79.View Article PubMed
  Birmingham, E., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Get real! Resolving the debate about equivalent social stimuli. Visual Cognition, 17(6/7), 904-24.View Article
  Birmingham, E., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Human social attention: A new look at past, present and future investigations. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 118-40.
  Birmingham, E., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Investigating social attention: A case for increasing stimulus complexity in the laboratory. In J. A. Burack, J. T. Enns, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience, development, and psychopathology (pp. 251-76). New York: Oxford University Press.View Article
  Boggia, J., & Ristic, J. (2014). Social event segmentation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.-080/-7470218.-014.-64738 PubMed
  Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., & Zorzi, M. (2008). Modulations of hemispatial neglect by directional and numerical cues in the line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 46, 426-33.View Article PubMed
  Brignani, D., Guzzon, D., Marzi, C. A., & Miniussi, C. (2009). Attentional orienting induced by arrows and eye-gaze compared with an endogenous cue. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 370-81.View Article PubMed
  Callejas, A., Lupiá?ez, J., Funes, M. J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167, 27-7.View Article PubMed
  Callejas, A., Lupiá?ez, J., & Tudela, P. (2004). The three attentional networks: On their independence and interactions. Brain and Cognition, 54, 225-27.View Article PubMed
  Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201-15.View Article PubMed
  Correa, A., Lupià?ez, J., Milliken, B., & Tudela, P. (2004). Endogenous temporal orienting of attention in detection and discrimination tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 264-78.View Article
  Correa, A., Lupià?ez, J., & Tudela, P. (2006). The attentional mechanism of temporal orienting: Determinants and attributes. Experimental Brain Research, 169, 58-8.View Article PubMed
  Coull, J. T., Frith, C. D., Buchel, C., & Nobre, A. C. (2000). Orienting attention in time: Behaviour and neuroanatomical distinction between exogenous and endogenous shifts. Neuropsychologia, 38, 808-19.View Article PubMed
  Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language, 25(2), 141-68.View Article
  Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371-96.View Article
  Dodd, M. D., Van der Stigchel, S., Leghari, M. A., Fung, G., & Kingstone, A. (2008). Attentional SNARC: There's something special about numbers (let us count the ways). Cognition, 108(3), 810-18.View Article PubMed
  Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509-40.View Article
  Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 24, 581-04.View Article
  Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340-47.View Article PubMed
  Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307-14.View Article PubMed
  Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555-56.View Article
• 作者单位：Dana A. Hayward (1)
  Jelena Ristic (1)
  
  1. Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Ave, Montreal, QC, H3A 1B1, Canada
  
• 刊物主题：Cognitive Psychology;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1943-393X

文摘

The prevailing theoretical accounts of social cognitive processes propose that attention is preferentially engaged by social information. However, empirical investigations report virtually indistinguishable attention effects for social (e.g., gaze) and nonsocial (e.g., arrow) stimuli when a cuing task is used. Here, we show that this discrepancy between theory and data reflects a difference in how the extraneous processes induced by the cuing task’s parameters (i.e., tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation) modulate cue-specific attentional effects. Overall, we found that tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation interacted within the cuing task, resulting in underadditive magnitudes of spatial orienting and superadditive magnitudes of the foreperiod effect. However, those interactions differentially affected social and nonsocial attention. While typical rapid social orienting was resilient to changing task parameters, sustained social orienting was eliminated only when the contribution of both extraneous processes was reduced. In contrast, orienting elicited by nonsocial arrows grew in magnitude with the reduction of voluntary temporal preparation and was delayed by the joint reduction of tonic alertness and voluntary temporal preparation. Together, these data indicate that cue-specific attention effects are masked by task dynamics of the cuing paradigm and highlight a pivotal role of the cuing task parameters in both the measurement and the theoretical attribution of spatial attention effects.