دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Interactions among endogenous, exogenous, and agency-driven attentional selection mechanisms in interactive displays.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Interactions among endogenous, exogenous, and agency-driven attentional selection mechanisms in interactive displays.
المؤلفون: Vilanova-Goldstein AC; Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA. agoldst2@nd.edu., Huffman G; Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.; Leidos, Inc, Reston, VA, USA., Brockmole JR; Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
المصدر: Attention, perception & psychophysics [Atten Percept Psychophys] 2022 Jul; Vol. 84 (5), pp. 1477-1488. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 May 24.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101495384 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1943-393X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19433921 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Atten Percept Psychophys Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 2011- : New York : Springer
Original Publication: Austin, Tex. : Psychonomic Society
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Attention* , Attentional Bias*, Cues ; Humans ; Reaction Time
مستخلص: Attentional selection is driven, in part, by a complex interplay between endogenous and exogenous cues. Recently, one's interactions with the physical world have also been shown to bias attention. Specifically, the sense of agency that arises when our actions cause predictable outcomes biases our attention toward those things which we control. We investigated how this agency-driven attentional bias interacts with simultaneously presented endogenous (words) and exogenous (color singletons) environmental cues. Participants controlled the movement of one object while others moved independently. In a subsequent search task, targets were either the previously controlled objects or not. Targets were also validly or invalidly cued. Both cue types influenced attention allocation. Endogenous cues and agency-driven attentional selection were independent and additive, indicating they are separable mechanisms of selection. In contrast, exogenous cues eliminated the effects of agency, indicating that perceptually salient environmental cues can override internally derived effects of agency. This is the first demonstration of a boundary condition on agency-driven selection.
(© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)
References: Abrams, Richard A.., & Christ, Shawn E.. (2003). Motion Onset Captures Attention. Psychological Science, 14(5), 427–432. (PMID: 1293047210.1111/1467-9280.01458)
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1–7.
Bednark, J. G., & Franz, E. A. (2014). Agency attribution: Event-related potentials and outcome monitoring. Experimental Brain Research, 232(4), 1117–1126. (PMID: 2450419510.1007/s00221-014-3821-4)
Belopolsky, A. V., & Awh, E. (2016). The role of context in volitional control of feature-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 213–224. (PMID: 26348067)
Berger, A., Henik, A., & Rafal, R. (2005). Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 207. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.207)
Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1(7), 635–640. (PMID: 1019657310.1038/2870)
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. (PMID: 917695210.1163/156856897X00357)
Brisson, B., & Jolicœur, P. (2007). A psychological refractory period in access to visual short-term memory and the deployment of visual–spatial attention: Multitasking processing deficits revealed by event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 44(2), 323–333. (PMID: 1734371410.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00503.x)
Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., & Cronin, D. A. (2012). The visual world in sight and mind: How attention and memory interact to determine visual experience. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 103–145). Elsevier. (PMID: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00003-0)
Burnham, B. R. (2018). Selectively ignoring locations does not modulate contingent involuntary orienting, but selectively attending does. Visual Cognition, 26(1), 48–70. (PMID: 10.1080/13506285.2017.1385553)
Chambon, V., Wenke, D., Fleming, S. M., Prinz, W., & Haggard, P. (2012). An online neural substrate for sense of agency. Cerebral Cortex, 23(5), 1031–1037. (PMID: 2251052910.1093/cercor/bhs059)
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 4–45. (PMID: 10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p004)
David, N., Newen, A., & Vogeley, K. (2008). The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 523–534. (PMID: 1842408010.1016/j.concog.2008.03.004)
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193–222. (PMID: 760506110.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205)
Duncan, J. (1985). Visual search and visual attention. Attention and Performance, 11, 85–106.
Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 269–297. (PMID: 904656210.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269)
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1972). Temporal and spatial characteristics ofselective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(2), 201–204.
Farrer, C., Frey, S. H., Van Horn, J. D., Tunik, E., Turk, D., Inati, S., & Grafton, S. T. (2008). The angular gyrus computes action awareness representations. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 254–261. (PMID: 1749098910.1093/cercor/bhm050)
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030. (PMID: 1431742)
Geng, J. J., & Behrmann, M. (2002). Probability cuing of target location facilitates visual search implicitly in normal participants and patients with hemispatial neglect. Psychological Science, 13(6), 520–525. (PMID: 1243083510.1111/1467-9280.00491)
Geng, J. J., & Behrmann, M. (2005). Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(7), 1252–1268. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03193557)
Gozli, Davood. (2019). Experimental psychology and human agency. Springer Nature Switzerland. (PMID: 10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8)
Haggard, P. (2005). Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 290–295. (PMID: 1592580810.1016/j.tics.2005.04.012)
Haggard, P., & Chambon, V. (2012). Sense of agency. Current Biology, 22(10), R390–R392. (PMID: 2262585110.1016/j.cub.2012.02.040)
Haggard, P., & Tsakiris, M. (2009). The experience of agency: Feelings, judgments, and responsibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 242–246. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01644.x)
Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12(5), 360–365. (PMID: 1155466710.1111/1467-9280.00367)
Huffman, G., & Brockmole, J. R. (2020). Attentional selection is biased towards controllable stimuli. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1–12. Advance online publication.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Jonides, J. (1980). Towards a model of the mind's eye's movement. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 34(2), 103. (PMID: 10.1037/h0081031)
Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(4), 346–354. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03208805)
Kingstone, A. (1992). Combining expectancies. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 44(1), 69–104. (PMID: 10.1080/14640749208401284)
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox-3?.
Kühn, S., Nenchev, I., Haggard, P., Brass, M., Gallinat, J., & Voss, M. (2011). Whodunnit? Electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLOS ONE, 6(12), e28657. (PMID: 22194878323747310.1371/journal.pone.0028657)
Kumar, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Naturalizing sense of agency with a hierarchical event-control approach. PLOS ONE, 9(3), e92431. (PMID: 24642834395853210.1371/journal.pone.0092431)
Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 747–757. (PMID: 10811173)
Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457–463. (PMID: 20817592294466110.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001)
Leslie, A. M. (1995). A theory of agency. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. James Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 121–141). Oxford University Press.
Maxwell, Scott E.., & Delaney, Harold D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 181.
Metcalfe, J., & Greene, M. J. (2007). Metacognition of agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 184. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.184)
Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S., & Miele, D. B. (2013). Metacognition of agency: proximal action and distal outcome. Experimental Brain Research, 229(3), 485–496. (PMID: 2335870610.1007/s00221-012-3371-6)
Moore, J., & Haggard, P. (2008). Awareness of action: Inference and prediction. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 136–144. (PMID: 1730656510.1016/j.concog.2006.12.004)
Most, S. B., & Simons, D. J. (2001). Attention capture, orienting, and awareness. In C. L. Folk & B. S. Gibson (Eds.), Attraction, distraction and action: Multiple perspectives on attentional capture (pp. 151–173). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(01)80009-1. (PMID: 10.1016/S0166-4115(01)80009-1)
Nahab, F. B., Kundu, P., Gallea, C., Kakareka, J., Pursley, R., Pohida, T., Miletta, N., Friedman, J., & Hallett, M. (2011). The neural processes underlying self-agency. Cerebral Cortex, 21(1), 48–55. (PMID: 2037858110.1093/cercor/bhq059)
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. (PMID: 917695310.1163/156856897X00366)
Pfister, R., Heinemann, A., Kiesel, A., Thomaschke, R., & Janczyk, M. (2012). Do endogenous and exogenous action control compete for perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 279. (PMID: 22201462)
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. (PMID: 736757710.1080/00335558008248231)
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 531–556). Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. Modes of Perceiving and Processing Information, 137(158), 2.
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.109.2.160)
Potts, C. A., & Carlson, R. A. (2019). Control used and control felt: Two sides of the agency coin. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2304–2319. (PMID: 10.3758/s13414-019-01771-y)
Pratt, J., & Hommel, B. (2003). Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 835. (PMID: 14585008)
Richard, C. M., Wright, R. D., & Ward, L. M. (2003). Goal-driven modulation of stimulus-driven attentional capture in multiple-cue displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(6), 939–955. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03194825)
Sagarin, B. J., Ambler, J. K., & Lee, E. M. (2014). An ethical approach to peeking at data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 293–304. (PMID: 2617326510.1177/1745691614528214)
Salomon, R., Lim, M., Kannape, O., Llobera, J., & Blanke, O. (2013). “Self pop-out”: Agency enhances self-recognition in visual search. Experimental Brain Research, 228(2), 173–181. (PMID: 2366575310.1007/s00221-013-3549-6)
Sato, A. (2009). Both motor prediction and conceptual congruency between preview and action-effect contribute to explicit judgment of agency. Cognition, 110(1), 74–83. (PMID: 1903838010.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.011)
Sidarus, N., Vuorre, M., & Haggard, P. (2017). Integrating prospective and retrospective cues to the sense of agency: A multi-study investigation. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2017(1), nix012. (PMID: 30042845600717110.1093/nc/nix012)
Stephenson, L. J., Edwards, S. G., Howard, E. E., & Bayliss, A. P. (2018). Eyes that bind us: Gaze leading induces an implicit sense of agency. Cognition, 172, 124–133. (PMID: 2927273910.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.011)
Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(6), 599–606. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03211656)
Theeuwes, J., Olivers, C. N., & Belopolsky, A. (2010). Stimulus-driven capture and contingent capture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 872–881. (PMID: 26271783)
van der Wel, R., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Cues to agency: Time can tell. Agency and Joint Attention, 54, 256.
Vercher, J. L., Gauthier, G. M., Guedon, O., Blouin, J., Cole, J., & Lamarre, Y. (1996). Self-moved target eye tracking in control and deafferented subjects: Roles of arm motor command and proprioception in arm-eye coordination. Journal of Neurophysiology, 76(2), 1133–1144. (PMID: 887122610.1152/jn.1996.76.2.1133)
Wen, W., & Haggard, P. (2018). Control changes the way we look at the world. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(4), 603–619. (PMID: 2930898410.1162/jocn_a_01226)
Wen, W., & Haggard, P. (2020). Prediction error and regularity detection underlie two dissociable mechanisms for computing the sense of agency. Cognition, 195, 104074. (PMID: 3174386310.1016/j.cognition.2019.104074)
Wenke, D., Fleming, S. M., & Haggard, P. (2010). Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition, 115(1), 26–38. (PMID: 1994569710.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.016)
Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291–298. (PMID: 2616851910.1177/1745691611406923)
Wright, R. D., & Richard, C. M. (2003). Sensory mediation of stimulus-driven attentional capture in multiple-cue displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(6), 925–938. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03194824)
Zhao, J., Al-Aidroos, N., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2013). Attention is spontaneously biased toward regularities. Psychological Science, 24(5), 667–677. (PMID: 2355855210.1177/0956797612460407)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Attention; Cognitive and attentional control; Perception and Action; Selective
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20220524 Date Completed: 20220628 Latest Revision: 20220628
رمز التحديث: 20231215
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02507-1
PMID: 35610415
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1943-393X
DOI:10.3758/s13414-022-02507-1