Boundary conditions for the influence of spatial proximity on context-specific attentional settings

Flexibility of cognitive control is illustrated by the context-specific proportion compatibility (CSPC) effect, the now well-documented pattern showing that compatibility effects are reduced in mostly incompatible relative to mostly compatible locations. The episodic-retrieval account attributes the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bugg, J.M (Author), Diede, N.T (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer New York LLC 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 02966nam a2200361Ia 4500
001 10.3758-s13414-019-01686-8
008 220511s2019 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 19433921 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Boundary conditions for the influence of spatial proximity on context-specific attentional settings 
260 0 |b Springer New York LLC  |c 2019 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01686-8 
520 3 |a Flexibility of cognitive control is illustrated by the context-specific proportion compatibility (CSPC) effect, the now well-documented pattern showing that compatibility effects are reduced in mostly incompatible relative to mostly compatible locations. The episodic-retrieval account attributes the CSPC effect to location-specific representations that include the attentional settings formed via experience within a given location (e.g., a “focused” attentional setting becomes bound to a location with frequent conflict, whereas a “relaxed” setting becomes bound to one with infrequent conflict). However, Diede and Bugg (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1255–1266, 2016) demonstrated that the attentional setting associated with a given location can be based on experiences that accumulate across multiple “grouped” locations—namely, those that are proximal to each other, relative to other (distal) locations. This spatial grouping effect supported the relative-proximity hypothesis, which we further tested in the present study. Experiment 1 replicated the spatial grouping effect and showed that it could be disrupted by a horizontal line dividing the otherwise grouped locations. Experiments 2 through 4 suggested that grouping might be a form of “chunking”—that is, the spatial grouping effect did not occur when the proximal locations were few enough in number (two) to represent independently, but it did occur when there were six locations. When there were eight proximal locations (and ten locations overall), the CSPC effect disappeared entirely. These findings suggest important boundary conditions for the relative-proximity hypothesis and inform our understanding of how past experiences with conflict are organized in the form of episodic representations that enable on-the-fly adjustments in cognitive control. © 2019, The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 
650 0 4 |a attention 
650 0 4 |a Attention 
650 0 4 |a Context-specific cognitive control 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a Female 
650 0 4 |a Flanker 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a Male 
650 0 4 |a Orientation, Spatial 
650 0 4 |a Proportion congruence 
650 0 4 |a psychophysics 
650 0 4 |a Psychophysics 
650 0 4 |a spatial orientation 
650 0 4 |a Spatial proximity 
650 0 4 |a vision 
650 0 4 |a Visual Perception 
700 1 |a Bugg, J.M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Diede, N.T.  |e author 
773 |t Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics