Response-mediated spatial priming despite perfectly valid target location cues and intervening response events

Partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling

People respond more slowly in two-choice tasks when either a previous stimulus feature or the previous response repeats in partial repetition trials than when (a) both repeat in complete repetition trials or (b) both alternate in complete alternation trials. The binding account posits that such partial repetition costs index a memory-retrieval conflict, which occurs because partial repetition trials trigger the retrieval of a previous stimulus feature or response that conflicts with a current stimulus feature or response. However, such costs may additionally reflect a simple decision-making heuristic that uses the repetition or alternation of a previous stimulus feature as a "signal" to bias response selection toward a repetition or an alternation of the previous response. To determine whether signaling contributes to partial repetition costs, we employed a four-choice task. Here, a stimulus feature repetition still signals a response repetition, but a stimulus feature alternation does not signal which of the three remaining responses to make. Consistent with an influence of signaling, we sometimes observed complete repetition advantages without complete alternation advantages. Exploratory analyses further revealed that partial repetition costs measured more broadly were smaller in the four-choice task than in a matched two-choice task. These findings suggest that partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling.

Multisensory integration attenuates visually induced oculomotor inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism of the attention system involving bias toward novel stimuli and delayed generation of responses to targets at previously attended locations. According to the two-component theory, IOR consists of a perceptual component and an oculomotor component (oculomotor IOR [O-IOR]) depending on whether the eye movement system is activated. Previous studies have shown that multisensory integration weakens IOR when paying attention to both visual and auditory modalities. However, it remains unclear whether the O-IOR effect attenuated by multisensory integration also occurs when the oculomotor system is activated. Here, using two eye movement experiments, we investigated the effect of multisensory integration on O-IOR using the exogenous spatial cueing paradigm. In Experiment 1, we found a greater visual O-IOR effect compared with audiovisual and auditory O-IOR in divided modality attention. The relative multisensory response enhancement (rMRE) and violations of Miller's bound showed a greater magnitude of multisensory integration in the cued location compared with the uncued location. In Experiment 2, the magnitude of the audiovisual O-IOR effect was significantly less than that of the visual O-IOR in single visual modality selective attention. Implications for the effect of multisensory integration on O-IOR were discussed under conditions of oculomotor system activation, shedding new light on the two-component theory of IOR.

Inter-trial effects in priming of pop-out: Comparison of computational updating models

In visual search tasks, repeating features or the position of the target results in faster response times. Such inter-trial ‘priming’ effects occur not just for repetitions from the immediately preceding trial but also from trials further back. A paradigm known to produce particularly long-lasting inter-trial effects–of the target-defining feature, target position, and response (feature)–is the ‘priming of pop-out’ (PoP) paradigm, which typically uses sparse search displays and random swapping across trials of target- and distractor-defining features. However, the mechanisms underlying these inter-trial effects are still not well understood. To address this, we applied a modeling framework combining an evidence accumulation (EA) model with different computational updating rules of the model parameters (i.e., the drift rate and starting point of EA) for different aspects of stimulus history, to data from a (previously published) PoP study that had revealed significant inter-trial effects from several trials back for repetitions of the target color, the target position, and (response-critical) target feature. By performing a systematic model comparison, we aimed to determine which EA model parameter and which updating rule for that parameter best accounts for each inter-trial effect and the associated n-back temporal profile. We found that, in general, our modeling framework could accurately predict the n-back temporal profiles. Further, target color- and position-based inter-trial effects were best understood as arising from redistribution of a limited-capacity weight resource which determines the EA rate. In contrast, response-based inter-trial effects were best explained by a bias of the starting point towards the response associated with a previous target; this bias appeared largely tied to the position of the target. These findings elucidate how our cognitive system continually tracks, and updates an internal predictive model of, a number of separable stimulus and response parameters in order to optimize task performance.

In many perceptual tasks, performance is faster and more accurate when critical stimulus attributes are repeated from trial to trial compared to when they change. Priming of pop-out (PoP), visual search with sparse search displays and random swapping of the target feature between trials, is a paradigm in which such inter-trial effects can be traced back over several recent trial episodes. While many studies have explored PoP paradigms, the mechanisms underlying priming of the search-critical target feature, the target position, and the response-critical information are not yet fully understood. Here, we addressed this question by applying evidence accumulation (EA) decision models to the data from a previously published PoP study. The modeling framework combines evidence accumulation with Bayesian updating of the model parameters. Comparison of (> 1000) different combinations of decision models and updating rules revealed that the featural and positional priming effects were best explained by assuming that attentional “weight” resources are dynamically redistributed based on the recent history of target color and position, whereas response decisions are biased based on the recent history of the response-critical property of targets occuring at a particular (and nearby) position(s). These findings confirm that our cognitive system continually tracks, and updates an internal predictive model of, a number of separable stimulus and response parameters in order to optimize task performance.

Crossmodal Nonspatial Repetition Inhibition Due to Modality Shift

Previous studies have found that processing of a second stimulus is slower when the modality of the first stimulus differs, which is termed the modality shift effect. Moreover, people tend to respond more slowly to the second stimulus when the two stimuli are similar in the semantic dimension, which is termed the nonspatial repetition inhibition effect. This study aimed to explore the modality shift effect on nonspatial repetition inhibition and whether such modulation was influenced by different temporal intervals. A cue-target paradigm was adopted in which modality priming and identity priming were manipulated at three interstimuli intervals. The results showed that the response times under the modality shift condition were slower than those under the modality repeat condition. In trials with modality shift, responses to congruent cues and targets were slower than to incongruent cue-target combinations, indicating crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition. The crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition effect decreased with increasing interstimuli interval. These results provide evidence that the additional intervening event proposed in previous studies is not necessary for the occurrence of crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition.

When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return?

At some point, spatial priming effects more faithfully reflect response selection processes than they do attentional orienting or sensory processes. Findings from the spatial cueing literature suggest that two factors may be critical: (1) the amount of identity processing that is required in order to respond correctly (feature-based response hypothesis), and (2) the amount of spatial processing that is required in order to respond correctly (space-based response hypothesis). To test the first hypothesis, we manipulated whether observers made single keypress detection or two-choice localization responses to serially presented stimuli in peripheral vision and whether stimulus identity information processing was necessary before responding. Responses were always slowest when the target location repeated, consistent with an attentional orienting bias independent of keypress responding (i.e., inhibition of return; IOR). The localization procedure revealed a subtle additional cost for changing the target location and repeating a response, consistent with a response-related episodic retrieval effect predicted by the Theory of Event Coding (TEC). Neither effect was modulated by the need to discriminate features. To test the second hypothesis, we made spatial processing indispensable to response selection by requiring a decision between a detection and localization response, depending on where the target appeared. IOR was eliminated for detection, but not localization, responses, consistent with the TEC. Collectively, the findings suggest that the amount of space-based, but not feature-based, processing that is required to determine a response is responsible for the response retrieval effects that can co-occur with IOR.

Visual working memory load does not eliminate visuomotor repetition effects

When we respond to a stimulus, our ability to quickly execute this response depends on how combinations of stimulus and response features match to previous combinations of stimulus and response features. Some kind of memory representations must be underlying these visuomotor repetition effects. In this paper, we tested the hypothesis that visual working memory stores the stimulus information that gives rise to these effects. Participants discriminated the colors of successive stimuli while holding either three locations or colors in visual working memory. If visual working memory maintains the information about a previous event that leads to visuomotor repetition effects, then occupying working memory with colors or locations should selectively disrupt color-response and location-response repetition effects. The results of two experiments showed that neither color nor spatial memory load eliminated visuomotor repetition effects. Since working memory load did not disrupt repetition effects, it is unlikely that visual working memory resources are used to store the information that underlies visuomotor repetitions effects. Instead, these results are consistent with the view that visuomotor repetition effects stem from automatic long-term memory retrieval, but can also be accommodated by supposing separate buffers for visual working memory and response selection.

Dissociating Orienting Biases From Integration Effects With Eye Movements

Despite decades of research, the conditions under which shifts of attention to prior target locations are facilitated or inhibited remain unknown. This ambiguity is a product of the popular feature discrimination task, in which attentional bias is commonly inferred from the efficiency by which a stimulus feature is discriminated after its location has been repeated or changed. Problematically, these tasks lead to integration effects; effects of target-location repetition appear to depend entirely on whether the target feature or response also repeats, allowing for several possible inferences about orienting bias. To parcel out integration effects and orienting biases, we designed the present experiments to require localized eye movements and manual discrimination responses to serially presented targets with randomly repeating locations. Eye movements revealed consistent biases away from prior target locations. Manual discrimination responses revealed integration effects. These data collectively revealed inhibited reorienting and integration effects, which resolve the ambiguity and reconcile episodic integration and attentional orienting accounts.