Academic journal article Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

The Locus of Location Repetition Latency Effects

Academic journal article Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

The Locus of Location Repetition Latency Effects

Article excerpt

Abstract

We examined the processing locus (location vs. response) of location repetition effects in terms of the event [target (t) or distractor (d)] that initially occupied and then re-occupied the repeated location (i.e., t-to-t, t-to-d, d-to-t, d-to-d). Trials were presented in pairs (prime, then probe) and 2:1 location-to-response mappings were used. Generally, for all repetition conditions, perceptual processing at the repeated location itself was facilitated (location locus), while re-activated responses delayed output production (response locus). More specifically, perceptual facilitation observed for a repeated location was independent of the kind of processing (i.e., t or d) that occurred earlier, suggesting that it is not the labeling of locations as relevant or irrelevant that determines location repetition effects. Response production was significantly slowed only when a just-inhibited response had then to be executed, which supported the view that the spatial negative priming effect has a response locus.

Résumé Nous avons examiné le locus de traitement (l'emplacement par opposition à la réponse) des effets de la répétition d'emplacement en termes d'événement [cible (t) ou distracteur (d)] qui occupait initialement et puis réoccupait l'emplacement répété (c.-à-d. t à t, t à d, d à t, d à d). Les essais ont été présentés en paires (amorcés, puis sondés) et les mappings "emplacementréponse" de type 2:1 ont été utilisés. En règle générale, pour toutes les conditions de répétition, le traitement perceptif à l'emplacement répété proprement dit a été facilité (locus d'emplacement), alors que les réponses réactivées retardaient la production d'un résultat (locus de réponse). De manière plus spécifique, la facilitation perceptive observée pour un emplacement répété était indépendante du genre de traitement (c.-à-d. t ou d) qui a été effectué plus tôt, suggérant que ce n'est pas un étiquetage des emplacements pertinents ou non pertinents qui détermine les effets de répétition d'emplacement. La production d'une réponse a été ralentie de façon significative uniquement lorsqu'une réponse qui venait juste d'être inhibée devait être exécutée, ce qui appuie le point de vue que l'effet d'amorçage négatif spatial a un locus de réponse.

A method often used to study spatial attention and perception presents participants with target and distractor stimuli first in a prime trial and then again in a probe trial. Inferences about spatial attention and perception are often made based on changes in performance as a function of repetition of the spatial location of targets and distractors across the prime and probe trials. Four location repetition categories can be distinguished based upon the pair of events (target/distractor) that initially occupy and then re-occupy a particular location; specifically, targets/distractors may reappear later at the same location (i.e., target-to-target, distractor-to-distractor categories), or targets/distractors may alternate positions (target-to-distractor, distractorto-target categories; see Table 1, Method).

Distinguishing location repetition categories in this fashion highlights the possibility that the processing taking place on the probe trial at a repeated location may be determined both by the current target/distractor status of the probe and by the target/distractor status of the prime event that appeared previously in the same location. A basic question underlying research of this nature is whether the varying processing requirements associated with the four location repetition categories defined above influence performance on a spatial localization task. Although a large number of prior reports have addressed this general issue, the present study focuses on a specific conceptual question that has received little attention in these previous investigations; namely, the processing locus question (see Buckolz, Goldfarb, & Khan, 2004; Neill, Valdes, & Terry, 1995 for exceptions). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.