Investigating Object Files in Spatial Cueing
Abstract
Abstract. In spatial cueing, cues presented at target position (valid condition) can capture visual attention and facilitate responses to the target relative to cues presented away from target position (invalid condition). If cues and targets carry different features, the necessary updating of the object representation from the cue to the target display sometimes counteracts and even reverses facilitation in valid conditions, resulting in an inverted validity effect. Previous studies reached partly divergent conclusions regarding the conditions under which object-file updating occurs, and little is known about the exact nature of the processes involved. Object-file updating has so far been investigated by manipulating cue–target similarities in task-relevant target features, but other features that change between the cue and target displays might also contribute to object-file updating. This study examined the conditions under which object-file updating could counteract validity effects by systematically varying task-relevant (color), response-relevant (identity), and response-irrelevant (orientation) features between cue and target displays. The results illustrate that object-file updating is largely restricted to task-relevant features. In addition, the difficulty of the search task affects the degree to which object-file updating costs interact with spatial cueing.
References
(2019). Investigating the contribution of task and response repetitions to the sequential modulations of attentional cueing effects. Psychological Research, 83(6), 1251–1268. 10.1007/s00426-017-0950-y
(2018). A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects. Psychological Research, 84(3), 784–809. 10.1007/s00426-018-1087-3
(2014). The same-location cost is unrelated to attentional settings: An object-updating account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1465–1478. 10.1037/a0036383
(1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827–1837. 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4
(1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 847–858. 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.847
(1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044. 10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030
(2016). The problem of latent attentional capture: Easy visual search conceals capture by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1104–1120. 10.1037/xhp0000214
(2020). Testing the top‐down contingent capture of attention for abrupt‐onset cues: Evidence from cue‐elicited N2pc. Psychophysiology, 57(11), Article e13655. 10.1111/psyp.13655
(1996). What's in an object file? Evidence from priming studies. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(8), 1260–1277. 10.3758/BF03207558
(2010). Binding objects to locations: The relationship between object files and visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 543–564. 10.1037/a0017836
(2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
(1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219. 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O
(2014). Sailing from the seas of chaos into the corridor of stability: Practical recommendations to increase the informational value of studies. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 9(3), 278–292. 10.1177/1745691614528520
(2018). Testing the attentional dwelling hypothesis of attentional capture. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 43. 10.5334/joc.48
(2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. 10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
(2006). Intertrial priming stemming from ambiguity: A new account of priming in visual search. Visual Cognition, 13(2), 202–222. 10.1080/13506280500277488
(2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77(3), 249–259. 10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
(1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174. 10.1037/0096-3445.109.2.160
(2020). The influence of display-to-display feature changes on net cueing effects: Evidence for a contribution of object-file updating. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(6), 908–919. 10.1177/1747021820901938
(2018). Reaffirming the sensory recruitment account of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 190–192. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.12.007
(2019). Visual working memory directly alters perception. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(8), 827–836. 10.1038/s41562-019-0640-4
(2017). Reevaluating the sensory account of visual working memory storage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10), 794–815. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.013
(2018). Contingent attentional engagement: Stimulus- and goal-driven capture have qualitatively different consequences. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1930–1941. 10.1177/0956797618799302
