Conflict-induced perceptual filtering: A mechanism supporting location-specific control?

Preparation and persistence of deploying attention to locations or stimulus structures: Evidence from intermixed probe trials

Attention can be directed to the global or local level of a visual stimulus (i.e., Navon figure). Previous studies yielded reliable trial-to-trial level switch costs (i.e., worse performance when responding to the other level than on a previous trial), even though level cueing effects indicated anticipatory deployment of attention to the upcoming target level. To investigate the interplay of attentional preparation and persistence, we applied a probe trial method assumed to ensure a high degree of preparation for the upcoming target level and minimizing stimulus-specific proactive interference. Mirroring previous findings obtained in the domain of spatial attention, we found evidence for anticipatory attentional focusing on global/local target levels but not for persistence of the attentional set adopted on the previous trial. In a second experiment, we prevented preparation for upcoming attentional demands (in both global-local and spatial attention tasks). This resulted in the modulation of performance (in critical probe trials) by the attentional demands of the predecessor trial. Together, our findings demonstrate sensitivity of the probe trial method for attentional persistence and raise the possibility that such persistence can be completely eliminated by sufficiently strong preparation for the attentional demands of the following trial.

The effects of positions on deviant processing in mostly incompatible blocks in the flanker task

It is assumed that focused attention is induced by mostly incompatible (MI) blocks in the flanker task. This study aimed to examine the differences in deviant processing between positions of a stimulus in MI blocks. Thirty-nine adults participated in this study. Compatible and incompatible stimuli were classified into three types: typical (central and surrounding colors: black), central-deviant (central: red; surrounding: black), and surrounding-deviant (central: black; surrounding: red). Rare and equiprobable conditions were set for MI blocks. Central- and surrounding-deviant stimuli were presented with low probabilities in the rare condition and with identical probabilities to that of typical stimuli in the equiprobable condition. Deviant processing was evaluated by comparing between event-related potentials in rare and equiprobable conditions. The posterior negativity from 120 to 170 ms (i.e., N1) for central-deviant stimuli was significantly more negative in the rare condition than in the equiprobable condition, whereas there was no difference for surrounding-deviant stimuli. Conversely, the posterior negativity from 180 to 230 ms for both stimuli was significantly more negative in the rare condition than in the equiprobable condition, and the difference (i.e., visual mismatch negativity) was similar in central- and surrounding-deviant stimuli. These findings suggest that focused attention induced by MI blocks leads to differences in deviant processing between central and surrounding areas during the N1 time range. Therefore, evaluations of deviant processing can help examine processing in central and surrounding areas independently and are valuable for understanding cognitive control mechanisms in the flanker tasks.

The location-specific proportion congruence effect: Are left/right locations special?

People reactively adjust attentional control based on the history of conflict experiences at different locations resulting in location-specific proportion compatibility (LSPC) effects. Weidler et al. (2022, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48[4], 312-330) found that LSPC effects were larger when stimuli were presented on the horizontal axis (i.e., locations to left and right of fixation) compared with the vertical axis (i.e., locations above and below fixation). They proposed and provided initial evidence suggesting left/right locations may represent a special design feature that leads to stronger LSPC effects (i.e., horizontal precedence account). However, their use of horizontally oriented flanker stimuli, which required participants to traverse through the distracting flankers to select the central target selectively in the horizontal axis condition, may have contributed to the horizontal advantage they observed (i.e., gaze path account). The present study tested competing predictions of these two accounts. Experiment 1 used vertically oriented flanker stimuli and compared the findings with Weidler et al. The LSPC effect was larger for vertically oriented stimuli on the vertical axis, and horizontally oriented stimuli on the horizontal axis, supporting the gaze path account. Experiment 2 used flanker stimuli that required participants to traverse through distracting flankers regardless of the axis on which stimuli were presented. The LSPC effect was equivalent between the vertical axis and horizontal axis conditions. These results further supported the gaze path account and suggest that the critical design feature for amplifying LSPC effects is not left/right locations per se, but rather use of stimuli/axis combinations that encourage processing of the distractor dimension.