The latter finding deserves consideration Additive effects betwe

The latter finding deserves consideration. Additive effects between a S–R compatibility factor and variables that affect perceptual processing have consistently been observed (for reviews, see Sanders, 1980 and Sanders, 1990). S–R compatibility effects have been shown to combine additively with target duration (Simon & Berbaum, 1990), target eccentricity (Hommel, 1993, Experiment 1), and target quality (e.g., Acosta and Simon, 1976, Everett et al., 1985, Frowein and Sanders, 1978, Sanders, 1977, Shwartz et al., 1977, Simon,

1982, Simon and Pouraghabagher, 1978, Stoffels et al., 1985 and van Duren and Sanders, 1988; but see Hommel, 1993, Experiments 2–5; Stanovich & Pachella, 1977). Target quality has been manipulated along various dimensions selleckchem such as signal-background luminance contrast, sound bursts intensity levels, or visual noise. Hence, our results and those of Stafford et al. (2011) cannot be due to a peculiarity of color saturation.9 Simulations of the DSTP performed in the present

work show that the model is able to generate different outcomes (additivity/super-additivity between color saturation and compatibility, linear/curvilinear relationship between the mean and SD of RT distributions) under seemingly plausible parametric variations. Moreover, they highlight a tradeoff between the first and second phase of response selection. The model appears Tenofovir ic50 so flexible that it may be difficult to falsify. However, the DSTP fails to explain the Simon data, showing that it is indeed falsifiable.

The results of our experiments suggest a common model framework for different conflict tasks. This finding appears problematic for the SSP because the model was specifically designed to account for spatial attention dynamics in the Eriksen task, although White, Ratcliff, et all al. (2011) hypothesized that the spotlight component may also center on a more abstract attentional space. On the contrary, Hübner et al. (2010) formalized the DSTP in a sufficiently abstract way to “potentially serve as a framework for interpreting distributional effects in a large range of conflict paradigms” (p. 760). However, neither the DSTP nor the SSP explain processing in the Simon task, because the models are unable to predict an inversion of RT moments between compatibility conditions (i.e., the incompatible condition is associated with the largest mean and the smallest SD of RT) characteristic of the task (e.g., Burle et al., 2002, Pratte et al., 2010 and Schwarz and Miller, 2012). This statistical peculiarity suggests an important parametric variation between Eriksen and Simon tasks. An inversion of RT moments may be generated by a rate of evidence accumulation that becomes progressively higher for the incompatible compared to the compatible condition. The reason for such a counter-intuitive scheme is unclear. We explored alternative versions of the SSP and the DSTP with a lack of attentional selection in compatible trials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>