Facilitatory or Inhibitory Nontarget Effects in the Location-Cuing Paradigm

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 6, Issue 2-3, 1997, Pages 328-347

  Chastain, Garvin ^a   Cheal, MaryLou ^b  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZATION; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0031157257     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ccog.1997.0309     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bonnel A. M., Miller J. Attentional effects on concurrent psychophysical discriminations: Investigations of a sample-size model. Perception and Psychophysics. 55:1994;162-179.
2. N. J. Cepeda, K. R. Cave, N. P. Bichot, M.-S. Kim, Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations.
3. Chastain G., Cheal M. L., Lyon D. R. Attention and nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics. 58:1996;300-309.
4. Cheal M. L. Understanding diverse effects of visual attention with the VAP-Filters metaphor. Consciousness and Cognition. 6:1997;348-362.
5. Cheal M. L., Gregory M. Evidence of limited capacity and noise reduction with single-element displays in the location-cuing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23:1997;51-71.
6. Cheal M. L., Lyon D. R. Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 43:1991;859-880.
7. Cheal M. L., Lyon D. R., Gottlob L. R. A framework for understanding the allocation of attention in location-precued discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 47:1994;699-739.
8. Eriksen B. A., Eriksen C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics. 16:1974;143-149.
9. Eriksen C. W., Webb J. M., Fournier L. R. How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive? Apparently very little, but. Perception and Psychophysics. 47:1990;477-488.
10. Goolkasian P., Garver D. K. Evidence for processing letters at uncued locations. American Journal of Psychology. 8:1995;235-253.
11. Handy T. C., Kingstone A., Mangun G. R. Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency. Perception and Psychophysics. 58:1996;613-627.
12. Johnston W. A., Dark V. J. Selective attention. Annual Review of Psychology. 37:1986;43-75.
13. LaBerge D. Attentional processing. 1995;Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
14. Paquet L., Lortie C. Evidence for early selection: Precuing target location reduces interference from same-category distractors. Perception and Psychophysics. 48:1990;382-388.
15. Pashler H., Badgio P. C. Visual attention and stimulus identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 11:1985;105-121.
16. W. Prinzmetal, 1996, The phenomenology of attention.
17. Shiffrin R. M., Diller D. E., Cohen A. Processing visual information in an unattended location. Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention. 1995;Am. Psychol. Assoc. Washington.
18. Shiu L., Pashler H. Negligible effect of spatial precuing on identification of single digits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 20:1994;1037-1054.
19. Stroop J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 18:1935;643-662.
20. Wright R. D., Katz A. N., Hughes E. A. Inattention and the perception of visual features. Acta Psychologica. 83:1993;225-235.
21. Yantis S., Johnston J. C. On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 16:1990;135-149.