TY - JOUR
T1 - Contingent capture and inhibition of return
T2 - A comparison of mechanisms
AU - Prinzmetal, William
AU - Taylor, Jordan A.
AU - Myers, Loretta Barry
AU - Nguyen-Espino, Jacqueline
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011/9
Y1 - 2011/9
N2 - We investigated the cause(s) of two effects associated with involuntary attention in the spatial cueing task: contingent capture and inhibition of return (IOR). Previously, we found that there were two mechanisms of involuntary attention in this task: (1) a (serial) search mechanism that predicts a larger cueing effect in reaction time with more display locations and (2) a decision (threshold) mechanism that predicts a smaller cueing effect with more display locations (Prinzmetal et al. 2010). In the present study, contingent capture and IOR had completely different patterns of results when we manipulated the number of display locations and the presence of distractors. Contingent capture was best described by a search model, whereas the inhibition of return was best described by a decision model. Furthermore, we fit a linear ballistic accumulator model to the results and IOR was accounted for by a change of threshold, whereas the results from contingent capture experiments could not be fit with a change of threshold and were better fit by a search model.
AB - We investigated the cause(s) of two effects associated with involuntary attention in the spatial cueing task: contingent capture and inhibition of return (IOR). Previously, we found that there were two mechanisms of involuntary attention in this task: (1) a (serial) search mechanism that predicts a larger cueing effect in reaction time with more display locations and (2) a decision (threshold) mechanism that predicts a smaller cueing effect with more display locations (Prinzmetal et al. 2010). In the present study, contingent capture and IOR had completely different patterns of results when we manipulated the number of display locations and the presence of distractors. Contingent capture was best described by a search model, whereas the inhibition of return was best described by a decision model. Furthermore, we fit a linear ballistic accumulator model to the results and IOR was accounted for by a change of threshold, whereas the results from contingent capture experiments could not be fit with a change of threshold and were better fit by a search model.
KW - Attention
KW - Contingent capture
KW - Exogenous attention
KW - Inhibition of return
KW - Involuntary attention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053937874&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053937874&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00221-011-2805-x
DO - 10.1007/s00221-011-2805-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 21814835
AN - SCOPUS:80053937874
VL - 214
SP - 47
EP - 60
JO - Experimental Brain Research
JF - Experimental Brain Research
SN - 0014-4819
IS - 1
ER -