AI帮你理解科学

AI 生成解读视频

AI抽取解析论文重点内容自动生成视频


pub
生成解读视频

AI 溯源

AI解析本论文相关学术脉络


Master Reading Tree
生成 溯源树

AI 精读

AI抽取本论文的概要总结


微博一下
Analysis of the valid and invalid precue trials in Experiment 3 revealed the same target side  precue validity interaction observed in Experiments 1 and 2, i.e., a rightward advantage in valid precue trials that was reduced or eliminated in invalid precue trials

Visual field asymmetries and allocation of attention in visual scenes

Brain and Cognition, no. 1 (2002): 95-115

被引用13|浏览17
EI WOS
下载 PDF 全文
引用
微博一下

摘要

Single items such as objects, letters or words are often presented in the right or left visual field to examine hemispheric differences in cognitive processing. However, in everyday life, such items appear within a visual context or scene that affects how they are represented and selected for attention. Here we examine processing asymmetr...更多

代码

数据

0
简介
  • One hand, eye or foot is preferred over the other, and cognitively the hemispheres differ in a number of ways.
  • The latter processing differences are often described in terms such as linguistic/spatial, part/whole, time/space, or local/global.
  • The nature of the cognitive processes underlying hemispheric asymmetry may be debated, it is a fact that asymmetric function exists.
重点内容
  • It is not news that there is functional asymmetry within the human brain
  • Because the rightward advantage was not eliminated by valid precues, it is unlikely to be due to a global
  • The most consistent effect that can be seen in Fig. 1 is a larger difference between valid and invalid precue trials for targets on the right (40 ms) than for those on the left (11 ms)
  • Analysis of the valid and invalid precue trials in Experiment 3 revealed the same target side  precue validity interaction observed in Experiments 1 and 2, i.e., a rightward advantage in valid precue trials that was reduced or eliminated in invalid precue trials (Fig. 4)
  • A smaller (10 ms), but significant, rightward advantage that was independent of precue validity was obtained in this study
  • The arrow precue predicted the upcoming target side with 75% accuracy
  • There was strong evidence for a precue-independent rightward advantage that might reflect either an attention-insensitive mechanism or an attention-related asymmetry engaged by all targets appearing on the right side
方法
  • Six men and 10 women, aged 18–47 participated.
  • Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 participated in Experiment 3.
  • Seven used their right hand and seven used their left hand to respond.
  • In 80% of the trials, the two right or the two left lines of the diamond were white, forming an arrow that predicted the target location with 75% accuracy.
  • In the remaining 20% of the trials, the entire diamond was light gray
结果
  • The mean RT over all conditions was 563 ms. Precue validity and SOA effects conformed to those normally obtained in an endogenous spatial precuing task.
  • Responses were faster to validly than to invalidly precued targets at all SOAs, but the difference was largest at the 650 ms SOA (validity  SOA interaction, F ð2; 28Þ 1⁄4 5:3, p 1⁄4 :01Þ.
  • RTs to validly precued targets were 21 ms faster than to invalidly precued targets, F ð1; 12Þ 1⁄4 43:4, p < :001, comparable to the effects obtained in Experiment 1 (25 ms) and Experiment 2 (28 ms).
  • The validity effect was larger at the long SOA, F ð1; 12Þ 1⁄4 9:7, p < :01
结论
  • The rightward spatial advantage observed by Robertson (1995) appeared only for validly precued targets in this study.
  • The overall effect of precue validity was larger and more consistent for right targets than for left targets across both SOAs and all frame orientations
  • The mechanisms underlying these asymmetries were clearly organized within scene-based coordinates.
  • There was strong evidence for a precue-independent rightward advantage that might reflect either an attention-insensitive mechanism or an attention-related asymmetry engaged by all targets appearing on the right side
  • These alternatives will be discussed in more detail in Section 6
基金
  • The research was supported by a Veterans Administration Medical Research Scientist Award and National Science Foundation Award SBR-9222118 to Lynn C
研究对象与分析
men: 6
. Six men and 10 women, aged 18–47 (mean 1⁄4 23) participated. All but one were naive to the goals of the study

men and nine women: 8
All gave written consent and were paid for their participation. Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 (mean 1⁄4 20.3) participated in Experiment 3. Three female participants were eliminated from the data analyses because the number of acceptable trials in one or more cell(s) of the design fell below 80% (see Section 5.4)

female participants: 3
Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 (mean 1⁄4 20.3) participated in Experiment 3. Three female participants were eliminated from the data analyses because the number of acceptable trials in one or more cell(s) of the design fell below 80% (see Section 5.4). Of the remaining participants, seven used their right hand and seven used their left hand to respond

men: 6
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). Six men and 10 women, aged 18–47 (mean 1⁄4 23) participated. All but one were naive to the goals of the study

men and nine women: 8
There were no target location markers. Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 (mean 1⁄4 20.3) participated in Experiment 3. Three female participants were eliminated from the data analyses because the number of acceptable trials in one or more cell(s) of the design fell below 80% (see Section 5.4)

female participants: 3
Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 (mean 1⁄4 20.3) participated in Experiment 3. Three female participants were eliminated from the data analyses because the number of acceptable trials in one or more cell(s) of the design fell below 80% (see Section 5.4). Of the remaining participants, seven used their right hand and seven used their left hand to respond.

5.2

men: 6
Participants. Six men and 10 women, aged 18–47 (mean 1⁄4 23) participated. All but one were naive to the goals of the study

men and seven women: 9
Participants. Nine men and seven women, aged 17–33 (mean 1⁄4 22.5) participated. All were naive to the goals of the study

men and nine women: 8
Participants. Eight men and nine women, aged 18–23 (mean 1⁄4 20.3) participated in Experiment 3. Three female participants were eliminated from the data analyses because the number of acceptable trials in one or more cell(s) of the design fell below 80% (see Section 5.4)

引用论文
  • Behrmann, M., & Hamison, C. (1999). The cognitive neuroscience of visual attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 158–163.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1999). Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 83–101.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Bryden, M. P., & Mondor, T. A. (1991). Attentional factors in visual field asymmetries. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 427–442.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Calvanio, R., Petrone, P. N., & Levine, D. N. (1987). Left visual spatial neglect is both environmentcentered and body-centered. Neurology, 37, 1179–1183.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Corballis, M. C., Nagourney, B. A., Shetzer, L. I., & Stefanatos, G. (1978). Mental rotation under head tilt: Factors influencing the location of the subjective reference frame. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 263–273.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Driver, J. (1999). Egocentric and object-based visual neglect. In N. Burgess, K. J. Jeffery, & J. O’Keefe (Eds.), The Hippocampal and Parietal Foundations of Spatial Cognition (pp. 67–89). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Egly, R., & Homa, D. (1984). Sensitization in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 778–793.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Gibson, B. S., & Egeth, H. (1994). Inhibition of return to object-based and environment-based locations. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 323–339.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Handy, T. C., Kingstone, A., & Mangun, G. R. (1996). Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 613–627.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hardyck, C., Chiarello, C., Dronkers, N. F., & Simpson, G. V. (1985). Orienting attention within visual fields: How efficient is interhemispheric transfer? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 650–666.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Heilman, K. M. (1995). Attentional asymmetries. In R. J. Davidson & K. Hugdahl (Eds.), Brain Asymmetry (pp. 217–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Hellige, J. B., Cowin, E. L., Eng, T., & Sergent, V. (1991). Perceptual reference frames and visual field asymmetry for verbal processing. Neuropsychologica, 29, 929–939.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hinton, G. E., & Parsons, L. M. (1981). Frames of reference and mental imagery. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and Performance IX (pp. 261–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hinton, G. E., & Parsons, L. M. (1988). Scene-based and viewer-centered representations for comparing shapes. Cognition, 30, 1–35.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hommel, B., & Lippa, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 370–374.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Humphreys, G. W. (1983). Reference frames and shape perception. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 151–196.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ivry, R. B., & Robertson, L. C. (1998). Two Sides of Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Kinsbourne, M. (1970). The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychologica, 33, 193–201.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–146.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • McMullen, P. A., & Jolicoeur, P. (1990). The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left–right reflections. Memory and Cognition, 18, 99–115.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Mishkin, M., & Forgays, D. G. (1952). Word recognition as a function of retinal locus. Journal of
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Mondor, R. A., & Bryden, M. P. (1992). On the relation between visual spatial attention and visual field asymmetries. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 529–555.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nicholls, M. E. R., & Wood, A. G. (1998). The contribution of attention to the right visual field advantage for word recognition. Brain and Cognition, 38, 339–357.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Olson, C. R., & Gettner, S. N. (1996). Brain representation of object-centered space. Current Opinion in
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Palmer, S. E. (1980). What makes triangles point: local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 285–305.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Palmer, S. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shepp & S.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Ballesteros (Eds.), Object Perception: Structure and Process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 531–557). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Quinlan, P. T. (1995). Evidence for the use of scene-based frames of reference in two-dimensional shape recognition. Spatial Vision, 9, 101–125.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Drain, M., & Hardy-Morais, C. (1996). Object-centered attentional biases in the intact brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 540–550.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Kinsbourne, M., & Moscovitch, M. (1990). Hemispheric control of spatial attention. Brain and Cognition, 12, 240–266.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rhodes, D., & Montgomery, S. (2000). Attention-centered spatial asymmetries, Abstracts of the Cognitive Neuroscience Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Robertson, L. C. (1995). Covert orienting biases in scene-based reference frames: orientation priming and visual field differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 707–718.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Robertson, L. C., & Kim, M. S. (1998). Effects of perceived space on spatial attention. Psychological Science, 10, 76–79.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Robertson, L. C., & Lamb, M. R. (1989). Judging the reflection of misoriented patterns in the right and left visual fields. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1081–1089.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Robertson, L. C., & Lamb, M. R. (1988). The role of perceptual reference frames in visual field asymmetries. Neuropsychologia, 26, 145–152.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rock, I. (1990). The frame of reference. In I. Rock (Ed.), The Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social Psychology (pp. 243–268). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rollenhagen, J. E., & Olson, C. R. (2000). Mirror-image confusion in single neurons of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. Science, 287, 1506–1508.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Schyns, P. G., & Oliva, A. (1994). From blobs to boundary edges: Evidence for time- and spatial-scaledependent scene recognition. Psychological Science, 5, 195–200.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Stoffer, T. H., & Yakin, A. R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon Effect. Psychological Research, 56, 151–162.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
您的评分 :
0

 

标签
评论
数据免责声明
页面数据均来自互联网公开来源、合作出版商和通过AI技术自动分析结果,我们不对页面数据的有效性、准确性、正确性、可靠性、完整性和及时性做出任何承诺和保证。若有疑问,可以通过电子邮件方式联系我们:report@aminer.cn
小科