Reevaluating the disengagement hypothesis

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 135, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 127-129

  Lamy, Dominique ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; COGNITION; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; NOTE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; VISION;

ATTENTION; GOALS; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISUAL PERCEPTION; VOLITION;

EID: 77957167392     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.009     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Anderson B.A., Folk C.L. Variations in the magnitude of attentional capture: Testing a two-process model. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2010, 72:342-352.
2. Bravo M.J., Nakayama K. The role of attention in different visual-search tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 51:465-472.
3. Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review 1990, 97:523-547.
4. Chen P., Mordkoff J.T. Contingent capture at a very short SOA: Evidence against rapid disengagement. Visual Cognition 2007, 15(6):637-646.
5. Folk C.L., Remington R.W., Johnston J.C. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992, 18:1030-1044.
6. Folk C.L., Remington R.W. Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24(3):847-858.
7. Geyer T., Muller H.J., Krummenacher J. Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research 2008, 48(11):1315-1326.
8. Lamy D. Temporal expectations modulate attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:1112-1119.
9. Lamy D., Bar-Anan Y., Egeth H.E., Carmel T. Effects of top-down guidance and singleton-repetition priming on visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:287-293.
10. Lamy D., Carmel T., Egeth H.E., Leber A.B. Effects of search mode and intertrial priming on singleton search. Perception & Psychophysics 2006, 68(6):919-932.
11. Lamy D., Yashar A. Intertrial target-feature changes do not lead to more distraction by singletons: Target uncertainty does. Vision Research 2008, 48:1274-1279.
12. Pinto Y., Olivers C.N.L., Theeuwes J. Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: intertrial priming does. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67(8):1354-1361.
13. Theeuwes J. Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics 1991, 50(2):184-193.
14. Theeuwes J. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 51(6):599-606.
15. Theeuwes J. Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica 2010, 135:77-99. (this issue).
16. Theeuwes J., Atchley P., Kramer A.F. On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. Attention & Performance 2000, Vol. 18:105-125. MIT Press, Cambridge. S.M.J. Driver (Ed.).
17. Wolfe J.M. Guided search 2.0. A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1:202-238.
18. Yeh S.L., Liao H.I. On the generality of the contingent orienting hypothesis. Acta Psychologica 2008, 129:157-165.