AI Article Synopsis
- The study examined how cue-target SOAs (100, 500, 1000 ms) and cue predictability (50%, 75%, 25%) affect attention and awareness in participants.
- Both informed and uninformed participants could utilize the predictive value of cues to direct their attention, regardless of their ability to articulate this understanding later.
- In the non-predictive condition, those who weren't instructed showed normal cueing effects, while well-informed individuals displayed diminished effects, but the presence of instructions changed this outcome for those who received them.
Article Abstract
We used several cue-target SOAs (100, 500, 1000 ms) and three different degrees of cue predictability (Non-predictive-50%, Predictive-75%, Counter-predictive-25%), to investigate the role of awareness of cue-target predictability on cueing effects. A group of participants received instructions about the informative value of the cue, while another group did not receive such instructions. Participants were able to extract the predictive value of a spatially peripheral cue and use it to orient attention, whether or not specific instructions about the predictive value of the cue were given, and no matter their ability to correctly report it in a post-test questionnaire. In the non-predictive block, bad estimators who received no instructions showed regular cueing effects, while good estimators exhibited smaller and non-significant facilitatory effects at the short SOA and an absence of significant IOR at longer SOAs. However, for the instructions group, the pattern of results reversed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.024 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!