|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01905nam a2200325Ia 4500 |
| 001 |
10.1177-1747021821998572 |
| 008 |
220427s2021 CNT 000 0 und d |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 17470218 (ISSN)
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Do eyes and arrows elicit automatic orienting? Three mutually exclusive hypotheses and a test
|
| 260 |
|
0 |
|b SAGE Publications Ltd
|c 2021
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021821998572
|
| 520 |
3 |
|
|a Eyes in a schematic face and arrows presented at fixation can each cue an upcoming lateralized target such that responses to the target are faster to a valid than an invalid cue (sometimes claimed to reflect “automatic” orienting). One test of an automatic process concerns the extent to which it can be interfered with by another process. The present experiment investigates the ability of eyes and arrows to cue an upcoming target when both cues are present at the same time. On some trials they are congruent (both cues signal the same direction); on other trials they are incongruent (the two cues signal opposite directions). When the cues are congruent a valid cue produced faster response times than an invalid cue. In the incongruent case arrows are resistant to interference from eyes, whereas an incongruent arrow eliminates a cueing effect for eyes. The discussion elaborates briefly on the theoretical implications. © Experimental Psychology Society 2021.
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a association
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a attention
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Attention
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Automaticity
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cues
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a eye fixation
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a eye gaze
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a face
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Face
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fixation, Ocular
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Humans
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a reaction time
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reaction Time
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Besner, D.
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a McLean, D.
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Young, T.
|e author
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
|
