Attentional bias toward low-intensity stimuli: An explanation for the intensity dissociation between reaction time and temporal order judgment?
Consciousness and Cognition 9 (3):435-456 (2000)
If two stimuli need different times to be processed, this difference should in principle be reflected both by response times (RT) and by judgments of their temporal order (TOJ). However, several dissociations have been reported between RT and TOJ, e.g., RT is more affected than TOJ when stimulus intensity decreases. One account for these dissociations is to assume differences in the allocation of attention induced by the two tasks. To test this hypothesis, different distributions of attention were induced in the present study between two stimulus positions (above and below fixation). Only bright stimuli appeared in one position and either bright or dim stimuli in the other. In the two RT experiments, participants had to respond to every stimulus appearing in one of the two positions. Reaction times to bright stimuli were faster when they appeared in the position where dim stimuli were likely to occur. This finding suggests that the allocation of attention was adapted to the asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli, not suggested by explicit instruction. In the two TOJ experiments, the temporal order of stimuli appearing in the two positions had to be judged. Although bright stimuli appearing at the bright-and-dim location were judged to be earlier, this effect was small and insignificant. Further, the intensity dissociation between RT and TOJ was insensitive to random vs blockwise presentations of intensities, therefore was not modified by attentional preferences. Thus, asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli has an impact on the allocation of attention, but only in the RT task. Therefore dissociations between TOJ and response times cannot be accounted for by an attentional bias in the TOJ task but probably by different use of temporal information in the two tasks.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Residual Function After Brain Wounds Involving the Central Visual Pathways in Man.Ernst Poppel, R. Held & D. Frost - 1973 - Nature 243:295-96.
On the Specific Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Learning and Cognition: Clues From PET Activation and Lesion Studies in Man.W. T. Thach - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):411-433.
Models of the Cerebellum and Motor Learning.James C. Houk, Jay T. Buckingham & Andrew G. Barto - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):368-383.
Orienting of Attention.M. I. Posner - 1980 - Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32 (1):3-25.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A “Presence/Absence Hypothesis” Concerning Hippocampal Function.David J. Murray - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):462-463.
Blindsight and Visual Awareness.Paul Azzopardi & Alan Cowey - 1998 - Consciousness and Cognition 7 (3):292-311.
Attention Shuts Out Irrelevant Stimuli.Bruce Bridgeman - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):769-769.
Nonnomic Properties of Stimuli and Psychological Explanation.Randall K. Campbell - 1991 - Behavior and Philosophy 19 (1):77 - 92.
Effects of Unseen Stimuli on Reaction Times to Seen Stimuli in Monkeys with Blindsight.A. Cowey, P. Stoerig & C. Le Mare - 1998 - Consciousness and Cognition 7 (3):312-323.
Sorites Without Vagueness I: Classificatory Sorites.Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov & Damir D. Dzhafarov - 2010 - Theoria 76 (1):4-24.
Increasing Increment Generalizations of Rank-Dependent Theories.R. Duncan Luce - 2003 - Theory and Decision 55 (2):87-146.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #466,268 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,698 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?